Okay, I have a feeling this one might start an argument or two…
That is not my intention. If you have looked at Age of Sigmar and thought ‘urk, big armoured guys in fantasy, not for me!’ or something similar, that is just fine. Plenty of other games out there.
What I am saying is that if you have decided that you do not like Age of Sigmar, then it is just possible that some of the reasons you do not like it are wrong. Somewhere along the line, someone has told you something about the game that is simply not true.
The following are points I have seen made about Age of Sigmar on a variety of Internet forums and they are either not correct, or are based on some shaky foundations.
It is not my intention to provoke anyone. All I am saying is that if you have found yourself saying anything like the comments below, you may have been mis-informed.
All my favourite characters are gone! Just about all Chaos characters are still present. The Chaos Gods took their favourite servants and moved them to the Mortal Realms. Your Glottkin is still working hard for Nurgle (and doing a damn good job, as it happens, seriously kicking Alarielle’s rear end).
Obviously, Alarielle is still around, and she seems to be significantly more powerful. Tyrion and Teclis are still a thing.
Speaking from an artistic point of view, Gotrek had to die. Of all the characters from the world-that-was, he was the one who was always going to be killed…
We don’t yet know the full extent of who survived the End Times and while many have gone, there are still strong links to the Old World.
Manfred, for example, has just popped up...
Age of Sigmar is failing No one (except a few at GWHQ) knows anything about how the game has been selling. One store, or even a bunch of Internet forums, do not a firm basis make for this conclusion. The first clue we will get will be next year in GW’s financial reports, and we may not really know for 2-3 years.
It really is okay to wait and reserve judgement for later. There is no requirement to make a decision on this immediately!
There are no tactics in Age of Sigmar – just dice rolling You have not got to grips with the game. If you really believe there are no tactics present, you have made that judgement too quickly. I’ll give some brief examples;
Age of Sigmar is a very mobile game, with a lot of movement and units exerting ‘zones’ of control (effectively, everyone has a 3” area around them that ‘traps’ enemy models). This makes movement very important, and leads to the ability to bait enemy models and block their own movement.
The randomisation of who goes first in a turn (and the possibility that you can have two turns in a row) is a big deal, and it will catch you out when you first play. However, once you get a few games under your belt, you start to figure out how to compensate for it. Basically, you can no longer march up your rock hard close combat unit and be ready for a charge – there is every chance you will be the one charged, and you need to pre-plan how you will counter that. Pre-planning is a basic definition of the use of tactics…
Another example; retreating. You don’t see this done too often in AoS, and that is because it can be quite hard to pull off. When you retreat a unit out of combat, you are basically ensuring it will not fight that turn and, even if you run, it is probable that the enemy will simply charge again and catch up with you. The trick here is to feed the enemy someone else, tying them up (remember the zones of control!).
For example, your elite archers get charged – this is bad news because even though they can theoretically shoot in close combat, many dedicated ranged units get bonuses to firing if the enemy is not right in front of them. So, if you stay there, you will be firing less effectively, and likely getting torn up by a unit that can fight well in close combat. If you just retreat, the enemy will soon catch up and finish you off, and barely miss a beat in doing it.
However, if you retreat your archer unit, and then charge in with your cavalry, the enemy will be unable to follow up, and your archers will be able to reposition themselves and keep firing in the next round.
This sounds simple, but with everything else going on in a turn, it is not always that easy to pull off.
And I have not even touched upon the synergies between units which are far, far more important than they are in Fantasy Battle or 40k…
Shooting in close combat makes no sense Sure it does. It is a different type of fighting to what you might be used to. I’ll give an example using 40k, as everyone will be familiar with that – feel free to substitute for Bloodreavers and Stormcasts.
A Dark Angels Tactical Squad charges the remnants of an Ork mob cowering behind a barricade, determined to shift them and claim this flank of the battle. One Tactical Marine leaps over the barricade, and kicks an Ork in the chest, leaving it flat on the floor. Stamping on its head with an armoured foot, he turns as another Ork rushes him with a massive cleaver. Raising his Bolter, he fires three rounds which tear through the alien’s chest. Giving praise to the Emperor, he continues firing as the rest of the Orks flee from the assault of the Dark Angels.
Can you see that happening in your head? It is a more cinematic approach to combat but, whether it is your cup of tea or not, it is one that works.
There is no balance in Age of Sigmar There is, but it is in your hands.
Even if we leave the ‘dick issue’ to one side (basically, don’t be one, and have as much consideration for your opponent’s fun as your own), there are now a handful of points systems available for AoS, and they are all community-made. As time goes on, they will become more accurate and more balanced. They are there and available for your use right now.
It is no secret that you don’t have to go far on a gaming forum to see people complaining about points imbalances in Fantasy Battle or 40k, and in these rants someone always bemoans the fact that GW does not engage in community-led pointing for units. After all, if thousands of people are submitting results, and points costs are updated, they will be far more accurate, right?
Well, that is what you have, right now, for Age of Sigmar. What is more, if you do not agree with one system (a certain points value for a unit will not be agreeable for everyone, you can be sure of that), then there are already others to try.
If competitive gaming is your thing, tournament organisers are now free to pick the points systems they feel work for them best – or simply come up with their own…
Given time, what can be more balanced than that?
But they could have added a points system, and all those ‘narrative’ gamers could have just ignored them – then everyone would have got what they wanted This is true (leaving aside the benefits of community-pointing for a moment). However, there is another problem and, speaking as a games designer, this is a very real one.
If you put a points-based system in, 99% of all players will use it to the exclusion of all else. Yes, they could just ignore points. But they won’t. Gamers just won’t.
How a game presents itself has a direct effect on how it is played, generally speaking. And this, I know, was a very real issue for the guys at GW in the past. During the days of 3rd Edition 40k, to cite an example, the vast majority of games played used the Dawn Assault mission because, for some reason, people had got it into their heads that it was the ‘fairest’ mission. They also tended to default to 1,500 points.
The problem for the designers is that they have all these other types of battles, and worlds, and models to show you, but if you are just playing 1,500 point Dawn Assault games, you are not getting any of it. You are missing out on a massive amount.
If you are the games designer responsible, that is a big issue. You are creating all this wonderful material, and none of it is getting used. It also means the game is going to stagnate – at some point, you will get bored with Dawn Assault, but if you have been conditioned to think that this is the only way of playing 40k, you may not be looking for alternatives.
I know this sounds ridiculous. But it is a very real thing, and it is very common.
By taking the points out of Age of Sigmar (and by the way they present scenarios), there is no ‘standard’ way of playing. You are being forced out of the comfort zone, and this is where the designers want you. They want you to experience Warhammer in a variety of formats that will keep you gaming for, well, forever.
The free rules are a marketing trick. GW wants you to buy the big, expensive hardback books Umm, yes. Of course they do. GW need to make money every month or they go bust, and then you will get no more Warhammer, of any flavour.
You can play Age of Sigmar with just the free materials (and, with the ‘legacy’ Warscrolls, there is a lot available for free) and go a long with just that. However, there is a lot more out there – eight entire worlds, in fact.
The hardbacks will give you new ways to play the game, via the Battleplans and Time of War sheets. However, their other purpose is to give you the story behind Age of Sigmar. The background behind Age of Sigmar is at least as important as the actual gaming system – and by this, I mean it is important to the structure of the game as a whole. It might not be important to you personally, as you may find mechanics to be the over-riding component necessary to you in the hobby. I know players who, when they get a new Codex, turn straight to the army list and it may be months before they read the background chapters, if at all. Age of Sigmar, as it stands, may not be for them.
The hardback releases (and those from the Black Library) are the direct driving force behind Age of Sigmar and, I imagine, always will be. If you are not into the storyline, then Age of Sigmar may not be for you. But the free rules are not a trick – the storyline is a fundamental component of the game.
“AOS is still for simpletons & peons. Enjoy your crappy game.” This is an actual quote from a forum. The level of disrespect present in this comment towards other people (forget other gamers, people in general), is simply breath taking. It would be nice to simply assume he is a maladjusted teenager but, unfortunately, he seems to be in his thirties.
If the guy who said it does not really believe this, then he was being disingenuous at best. If he really does believe what he says, then he is a moron, with no room in his tiny, tiny world for anything other than his own point of view. I can imagine he spends most of his time in a state of bliss.
“The game plays like there is no difference between a goblin and a super warrior Stormcast” Another direct quote, and it is a little bit troubling that someone actually thinks this. Of course there is a difference – that goblin is going to get stomped by the Stormcast in a stand up fight. In fact, a unit of five Stormcasts is likely to trounce a veritable mob of goblins unless they are well supported.
It is just stupid to stack models on top of one another Yes it is. But it does not happen in Age of Sigmar.
This is something that cropped up early on forums when Age of Sigmar was released, the idea that models could be placed on top of the bases of others to help with getting more models into combat, and it seems to have stuck.
I need to be clear on this point: Nowhere in the rules of Age of Sigmar does it suggest you can do this. Nowhere.
But, someone might say, it doesn’t say you can’t!
The trouble with this line of thinking is that it also does not say you can’t jam two dice up your opponent’s nostrils, then punch him in the ears so they blast out of his nose. The writers at GW do presume a measure of common sense when writing rules. And I do not think that is completely unreasonable.
Bases are ignored for the purposes of measuring ranges. That is all.
So, if I have a model with a 12” base, no one can fight me, right? Well, if you go down that road yes, sort of.
If you meet someone with a base like that, have a quick chat and sort it out. All it requires is the application of common sense. I am pretty sure this is why this is not in the rules sheet – the designers could not conceive of anyone seriously trying this loop hole and, to be frank, I agree with them.
They are not writing a set of rules designed to be resilient to all kinds of potential abuse. The assumption is made that both players want to have a good time and will play fairly. Now, you might disagree with that approach, but this is where they are coming from. They are expecting you to play your opponent, not to play the rules.
To put it another way, if someone places a model with a 12” base that makes it impossible to attack, they have clearly done it on purpose for that specific reason, and refuse to budge on any accommodation… walk away. Seriously, life is way too short, and if they have done that, it really will be the least of the issues you will experience while playing them.
I’ll put it yet another way – making a base like that would be like making yourself invulnerable by glitching yourself into a wall in Battlefield or Call of Duty. Yes, the ‘rules’ permit it. But what have you actually gained other than ruining the enjoyment of other people?
(Incidentally, if you think glitching into walls is legitimate, then Games Workshop games overall are probably not for you).
Games Workshop does not care about gamers Games Workshop is a company. It is incapable of caring about anything.
However, having spent some time with some of the design studio at GWHQ in the past, I can tell you that there are individuals there who very much do care about gamers. They are extremely enthusiastic about games (and yes, they play games other than those produced by GW!), and they see their job as communicating that enthusiasm to you, the gamer.
I appreciate what you're doing here, and enthusiasm for something you enjoy isn't a bad thing, but I'd like to offer a few counter-points from a different perspective.
All my favourite characters are gone! Just about all Chaos characters are still present. The Chaos Gods took their favourite servants and moved them to the Mortal Realms. Your Glottkin is still working hard for Nurgle (and doing a damn good job, as it happens, seriously kicking Alarielle’s rear end).
Obviously, Alarielle is still around, and she seems to be significantly more powerful. Tyrion and Teclis are still a thing.
Speaking from an artistic point of view, Gotrek had to die. Of all the characters from the world-that-was, he was the one who was always going to be killed…
We don’t yet know the full extent of who survived the End Times and while many have gone, there are still strong links to the Old World.
Manfred, for example, has just popped up...
Yeah, but...all my favorite characters are gone They literally forgot about Skarsnik (and I hope it stays that way, because he'd probably come back as some sort of hybrid squig monstrosity fueled by Waaagh! energy instead of the sneaky, tricksy dirty-fightin' gobbo we know and love), Wurrzag's gone, Morglum Necksnapper's been relegated to tidbit status for ages and so HE'S not coming back...and more importantly, the game doesn't have the sort of setting to help bring forth the kind of characters I liked best, which were the fun little people in the background. There's no place in Age of Sigmar for a ratcatcher and his small but vicious dog. There's no place for a scruffy Border Prince that rose to power by literal backstabbing before being deposed and exiled half a week later. There's no place for the kindly old asylum owner who takes care of all those poor people who keep babbling about giant rats in the sewers - or, for that matter, the sewer jack who has to go down and deal with them. They just don't fit anywhere in the world.
I mean, it's enough of a blank canvas that you can make a place for them, you can come up with your own Altdorf or Karak Eight Peaks or Border Princes, but at that point, why not just write your own setting? It's a deliberate choice on GW's part because it works in 40k, but they're ignoring the fact that 40k still has the necessary superstructure to build on. You get those details about hives on Armageddon or how forge worlds interact with the rest of the Imperium, and you can slot your own planet in there neatly and know how a hive world that supplies parts for the local tech-priests would work.
Don't get me wrong, being able to make up your own stuff is wonderful, leaving room for that has always been one of GW's greatest strengths, but there's such a thing as taking it too far.
Shooting in close combat makes no sense
Sure it does. It is a different type of fighting to what you might be used to. I’ll give an example using 40k, as everyone will be familiar with that – feel free to substitute for Bloodreavers and Stormcasts.
A Dark Angels Tactical Squad charges the remnants of an Ork mob cowering behind a barricade, determined to shift them and claim this flank of the battle. One Tactical Marine leaps over the barricade, and kicks an Ork in the chest, leaving it flat on the floor. Stamping on its head with an armoured foot, he turns as another Ork rushes him with a massive cleaver. Raising his Bolter, he fires three rounds which tear through the alien’s chest. Giving praise to the Emperor, he continues firing as the rest of the Orks flee from the assault of the Dark Angels.
Can you see that happening in your head? It is a more cinematic approach to combat but, whether it is your cup of tea or not, it is one that works.
I can see that happening. What I can't see is a group of nearby Terminators spraying down the area with storm bolter (or...boltstormer... ) fire while their battle-brothers are engaged in a swirling, frantic melee with a mob of frenzied orks without causing a massive friendly fire incident. If you're going to have shooting in or into melee, there needs to be a chance to account for accidentally hitting an ally, and it's really immersion breaking when there isn't.
“The game plays like there is no difference between a goblin and a super warrior Stormcast”
Another direct quote, and it is a little bit troubling that someone actually thinks this. Of course there is a difference – that goblin is going to get stomped by the Stormcast in a stand up fight. In fact, a unit of five Stormcasts is likely to trounce a veritable mob of goblins unless they are well supported.
That one's a little unfair, I think it's reasonably clear that he's talking about the lack of a balancing system. Whether you want one or not is a matter of debate, I guess - although I think it's odd that it never was before Age of Sigmar showed up. The fact remains that you have to eyeball out whether or not forces are evenly matched, and that can lead to a few frustrating games before you find the right general area.
Games Workshop does not care about gamers
Games Workshop is a company. It is incapable of caring about anything.
However, having spent some time with some of the design studio at GWHQ in the past, I can tell you that there are individuals there who very much do care about gamers. They are extremely enthusiastic about games (and yes, they play games other than those produced by GW!), and they see their job as communicating that enthusiasm to you, the gamer.
A better way to phrase the complaint might be 'Games Workshop no longer prioritizes making a product to be used by gamers'. In the past, I'm sure they did. I think I know the kind of enthusiasm you're talking about - the sort that cropped up in the General's Compendium and all over the glorious old, OLD website (the one with all the links to fun skirmish scenarios and campaign rules and little tidbits of fluff, I think it was up around sixth/early seventh edition?)
I just don't see that any more in the material they produce. If the people who want to communicate that enthusiasm are still there, I'm afraid they're not doing the job they once did.
Your explain this topic in narrative way, actually the reason behind this is simple. Most RTS/MOBA/computer game allow shooting in(to) melee that streamline the rule and gaming pace for new gamer.
Dude, good points made. The only thing I'd say is there is a rule that says if your opponent has three times the number of models you have you chose one unit of theirs to kill. This, in my opinion, overpowers elite units, especially as the rules were made much simpler to attract players who had been put off by the amount if rules in 40k, the sort of people who may take a while to use or work out a fair "points" system. However, I completely agree with the rest.
Personnaly, I had troubles at the first glance with shooting in melee.
But well... We are talking about something not realistic in a game with monters and semi gods...
About simple rules, a friend of mine reminded me the go game has the simplest rules you can find, and it is still the hardest game to master (the only game with black belts aka dans I know)
MongooseMatt wrote: If competitive gaming is your thing, tournament organisers are now free to pick the points systems they feel work for them best – or simply come up with their own…
Given time, what can be more balanced than that?
A points system in the books that allows the phrase "2000 points" to be understood universally.
Back from a short absence, and it's heartwarming to know that the same debates are still being passionately fought
Spinner wrote: I can see that happening. What I can't see is a group of nearby Terminators spraying down the area with storm bolter (or...boltstormer... ) fire while their battle-brothers are engaged in a swirling, frantic melee with a mob of frenzied orks without causing a massive friendly fire incident. If you're going to have shooting in or into melee, there needs to be a chance to account for accidentally hitting an ally, and it's really immersion breaking when there isn't.
Presumably, fantasy battles are using slow firing weapons like crossbows and muskets where the "spray and pray" approach to ranged combat doesn't apply. When it takes you up to a minute to load each missle, you'll take the extra few seconds to aim before shooting. The balancing factor to ranged attacks is that they happen one per round, rather than up to four times per round like melee attacks.
That one's a little unfair, I think it's reasonably clear that he's talking about the lack of a balancing system. Whether you want one or not is a matter of debate, I guess - although I think it's odd that it never was before Age of Sigmar showed up. The fact remains that you have to eyeball out whether or not forces are evenly matched, and that can lead to a few frustrating games before you find the right general area.
In practice, it isn't nearly as much a problem as people make it out to be. In general, large power differences are easy to spot and somewhat imbalanced battles are still enjoyable to play where the advantage swings back and forth multiple times. So obsessing over balance is more of a mental hang up than a serious threat to the long term enjoyment of playing.
But well... We are talking about something not realistic in a game with monters and semi gods...
I'm sorry, but I really, really don't care for this argument. At some point, the world has to make sense. Just because there's dragons flying around defying the laws of physics and people being brought back from the dead doesn't mean that everyone is capable of flawlessly pulling off Legolas-style trick shots with their scavenged bows and javelins any more than it means everyone is capable of predicting the future. There's a great quote from Firefly about that -
Wash: Psychic, though? That sounds like something out of science-fiction.
Zoë: We live in a spaceship, dear.
Wash: So?
Back from a short absence, and it's heartwarming to know that the same debates are still being passionately fought
These will be fought forever. I'm waiting with baited breath for the financial report to come out so we can all stick to our positions and argue viciously about how it means nothing after all.
Presumably, fantasy battles are using slow firing weapons like crossbows and muskets where the "spray and pray" approach to ranged combat doesn't apply. When it takes you up to a minute to load each missle, you'll take the extra few seconds to aim before shooting. The balancing factor to ranged attacks is that they happen one per round, rather than up to four times per round like melee attacks.
Yeah, but don't the Stormcast have machine gun crossbows? And aren't most of those weapons really bad at aiming? Try sniping with a musket, see how often you miss. Besides that, you're still trying to draw a bead on people struggling back and forth, chopping at each other, ducking, charging...
In practice, it isn't nearly as much a problem as people make it out to be. In general, large power differences are easy to spot and somewhat imbalanced battles are still enjoyable to play where the advantage swings back and forth multiple times. So obsessing over balance is more of a mental hang up than a serious threat to the long term enjoyment of playing.
Genuinely curious - would you mind mocking up a few balanced against each other armies for me, then? Preferably with as much variation as possible; goblins, ogres, the odd lizardman army, so on and so forth. Just so I could see what you'd consider fairly evenly matched. If you don't have the time or inclination, that's totally understandable, I'd just like to get your perspective on that.
Oh man, I'm bailing out of this thread already. You're a brave man, Matt!
Just want to say your OP is a great read. I also love Age of Sigmar and regarding the tactics I am really enjoying new tepactical questions that have been arising the more I play.
Recently, the dilemma of deploying my Swordsmen flush with no gaps to prevent the amount of enemies that could get into combat vs spacing them out to control more of the battlefield.
TheCustomLime wrote: So most of these misconceptions are true but it's fine if you pretend they don't exist.
'Kay.
Thats what I read too.
"Yes this is an issue but PLAY IT MOREER AND LONGERER until you reeeeaaaaallllyyy know the game. Then it's only a little bit less worse" is all I practically read out of that.
OP in no way made the game any more appealing nor did he really change any misconceptions.
Regardless,
I am interested to see that a long bowman can thematically shoot his arrow WHILE being cleaved by Blood crushing blood clotters with blood cleavers hailing the blood god... SKULL! But wait there's more, he can also thematically shoot his arrow into another group of skull grinding skull shooting skullies... BLOOD (seriously, the first step to playing AOS is getting past the pre teen "dark" names) while being cleaved by said blood skulls? He can also apparently then thematically draw his melee weapon and continue fighting only to repeat the process next round?
Wow, that totally makes sense. So thematic. I wonder how the heavy crossbowmen of this world get their steroids too. Must be a tough job.
The mechanics for shooting is terrible. Shooting into a melee should have risks and benefits. Most games either eliminate this problem through game mechanics or have a risk reward set up when shooting. Shooting WHILE in melee should be reserved for very special things in a setting like sigmar. I don't care if it hardly changes the game, it's still an eye sore of a problem and nobody I know would play a game with rules like this for shooting (imagine how bad the other rules are...). If the games shooting rules are so bad someone has to use 40k examples to show how plausible it could be despite the game having bows and arrows etc then something is a little wrong.
I also found your bit on Sigmar being balanced by fans a bit funny. I can't think of something more player UNFRIENDLY than that. Why? First up what do new players do? They see this game in a random shop and buy it (despite it's price being high) and start playing. It is highly likely that those players will give up very quickly on this game once they see how bad the balance is. How does a player made comp on some internet site they never heard of help them? It doesn't. In order for a game to work it needs to be playable out of the box. This game is for people who primarily play because of the GW logo and can tolerate such bad balance simply because they are used to it.
If 99% of players use points over everything else... then perhaps (now hear me out, seriously) this means something. Perhaps it's because points works for a casual game played between 2 randoms? I don't know. Throwing that out there.
I can't be bothered going through all that dribble, but you need to write a big long post like this:
"Yes this game sucks, yes there is no balance, yes it's so easy to break this game, yes the mechanics don't make sense unless we explain it with 40k, yes there are rules that will make you scratch your head and there is a hell of a lot more where that comes from. But we like this game for skulls and blood and fantasy space marines. It is familiar to us and therefore we stick with it no matter what (and yes the logo is a big reason for this). I don't care what anybody thinks about this I ENJOY IT."
Writing that will not only make sense but it will also be honest. I mean, one of your points was "just walk away from anybody who doesn't play like you want them too". I mean, how can anybody bring this up as a good point about their favorite rules? By saying this you are acknowledging that the game IS imbalanced, that the game DOES have huge issues and so on. I can't think of another non GW game where you have to leave the game to avoid 99% of your issues with the rules.
Thank you Matt for your awesome original post! I'm only new to the fantasy side but I'll make my 2 comments :-P
1. Due to the "easier" systems in AoS the game is so much more inviting than it has been before, I know that depth is there to be had but I can build up to that with experience.
2. The point system/no balance issue is as you stated, up to the players to decide what's fair. It's a little slack on GWs part for not figuring it out themselves but at least we don't get the horrible mess of 40ks unbalance. Alot harder to be that guy if your negotiating what your both aloud to use before the game.
I can say, after playing several games of AOS since its release, that I disagree with most of your points. I don't hate the rules with a passion like some, but will be first to say that it takes INTENSE balancing huserules and the Azyr comp to play a fun game. I play with most of the Destruction faction, mainly night goblins on one side and Orcs and Ogres on the other. I have played both sides with varying lists. My verdect? Night goblins are horrible compared to their old rules. Unless you play a large army (all 150 of my goblins plus 12 river trolls and 2 mangler squigs) to be able to compete, and pray the guy I'm facing won't force sudden death on me. Against elites its even worse, Especially ogre leadbelchers with chaos warriors. Orcs with ogres facing my own goblins means the former will win 90% of the time. Add onto the game murdering the awesome setting and mapping it had and replacing it for ambiguous planes makes our group of wargamers visibly upset...so we ignore it and make modifications to the old setting as we desire for narrative campaigns.
My point being? The misconceptions you mention are purely opinions on both sides. There is no "mistake" on the opposing side, we simply disagree and have pointed out details of why we feel it is incorrect on what you proclaim since the game was released.
I agree with all of the OP's points, but I still think AoS is a very lacklustre game and a disgraceful performance by the GW design team. It could have been so much better!
Personally, it needs points or a balance system at the very least.
I think this alone would help improve it 10x.
If people want to fight with unlisted armies then crack on, but balance is something needed in all games to make them work.
What AoS needed was more simplicity (less detail) in the stat line, and more detail added in other rules areas such as morale.
A balance system couldn't have done any harm, and the number of people creating their own shows it was a bad thing to miss out, though the game is playable without.
There also seems to be a problem with GW creating more and more special rules for individual units, but I suppose that is the way they roll, and you can't avoid it.
Elephant in the Room here. Regimental Formation Combat. I wanted a game of Fantasy Battles not a skirmish game. I wanted mass regiments and full scale battle tactics rather than skirmish warfare as an option it's fine but it doesn't replace Warhammer in my mind the scale is wrong.
If a company has talented, dedicated, and passionate designers on staff, how does gak like AoS get out the door?
It gets out the door because the company itself doesn't care enough about the game, only the models.
A well designed and put together game doesn't need internet posts saying "you are doing it wrong" or "you need to look at it this way". A well designed and put together game flows simply out of the box and shows its depth the longer you put time into it.
It certainly doesn't need posts saying "don't believe all the other information you are reading about this game."
By GW's current standards, I am certain any reports will proclaim loudly the "unqualified success" of AoS.
By the vast majority of the gaming community, AoS is a resounding disappointment and a sad testament to the foundation that game and that game company were built upon.
Your no points....point is inaccurate. People play to win, not to make sure little Timmy feels the game is close enough that he could have won too. Anyone can sit down and hash out "fair" lists with their buddies, but then that restricts what GW wanted to do in the first place, get you to buy and use whatever you liked. And that reasoning gets thrown out the window in pickup games and tournaments. And as for fan made systems that's a joke. We had 10 people playing this, then they started insisting on using fan made comp systems. The non summoning armies unsurprisingly wanted to use the ruleset with the harshest restrictions on summoning, which pretty much made the two undead and lizardman players just quit. Some wanted solely wounds based, where things like bertonian knights on horses pumping out stupid amounts of attacks was king.
Truth is GW sat down and said "how can we make the pretense of a game to sell anyone anything they might want to use?". AoS is the results of the sales teams input, not fame designers. For the " leader" in gaming companies its an insulting half assed scam they are trying to justify as open enough to change it to your likeing. YOUR likeing, and nobody else. And because of it pickup and tournament play are a joke.
Man Matt get ready I agree with you but get ready that's all I gotta say. +1 though. I just feel its a new system and setting give it time I find the recent books rather interesting myself and I can't wait to see what mannfred gets up to in the setting since if I was nagash I would let him rot.
AoS isn't the regiment game that I started playing a few years back. It's a skirmish game, I didn't sign up for a skirmish game. It's a complete 180 flip. And there is no way to balance the game, and that, in itself, is utterly bizarre.
It shouldn't be up to the player base to design the damn game, it's up to the designers to design the thing. Every single player ever, goes into a game with the intention of completing it. Hopefully by winning. You don't play a PlayStation game to not finish the game, you play because you want to get to the end and beat it. All this talk of using wounds is just on the forum, what happens in club A, might not be the case in Club B. Club C might do something else entirely. In any other gaming system, Timmy can walk in and go. "I want to play a game." And I can okay. "Okay, how many points?" I might be there to have fun, but it's no fun starting the game with an unfair advantage.
Yeah, but...all my favorite characters are gone They literally forgot about Skarsnik (and I hope it stays that way, because he'd probably come back as some sort of hybrid squig monstrosity fueled by Waaagh! energy instead of the sneaky, tricksy dirty-fightin' gobbo we know and love), Wurrzag's gone, Morglum Necksnapper's been relegated to tidbit status for ages and so HE'S not coming back...
Those are fair enough points, but whatever was going to happen after the End Times some characters were not going to make it, and each one was always going to be someone's favourite. My point, and reading back I only kinda backed into it, was the remaining links to the Old World that are present. It is not a completely clean sheet, and while it is not the Old World, it is still Warhammer.
That was what I was trying to say
Spinner wrote: and more importantly, the game doesn't have the sort of setting to help bring forth the kind of characters I liked best, which were the fun little people in the background. There's no place in Age of Sigmar for a ratcatcher and his small but vicious dog. There's no place for a scruffy Border Prince that rose to power by literal backstabbing before being deposed and exiled half a week later. There's no place for the kindly old asylum owner who takes care of all those poor people who keep babbling about giant rats in the sewers - or, for that matter, the sewer jack who has to go down and deal with them. They just don't fit anywhere in the world.
Not yet. There have been bits and pieces of 'normal' folk popping up in the new fiction, but they have had no focus as yet - perhaps understandably, as there are bigger things going on right now.
However, the Realms seem to be, to all intents and purposes, infinite - I think that may very much have been the point behind them. No reason those characters you mention cannot/will not exist. Still early days, but I would venture the Mortal Realms were designed to serve as the foundation for a multitude of stories.
Still early days - neither the Old World nor 40k had the superstructure, as you say, right from the start. They did not kick off with a major event either.
I think this may be something worth reserving judgement on. If we still have not seen anything like this in the next year or so, may be worth revisiting!
That one's a little unfair, I think it's reasonably clear that he's talking about the lack of a balancing system.
If that was what the gentleman was meaning, I take it back - wasn't my intention to pick on him, just seemed to be something that was fundamentally wrong (from the way I read it), and thus served to be in the list.
I just don't see that any more in the material they produce. If the people who want to communicate that enthusiasm are still there, I'm afraid they're not doing the job they once did.
I think you and I have some common ground here! I do think there may be some issues with communication - not with the often cited lack of defined release schedule or not laying out the whole of the AoS background (those just ain't going to happen, and I think there are valid reasons why that should be so), but with how, for want of a better term, access to their games is presented.
To give an example that got me thinking, take the Chaos Dreadhold. When that was first previewed, many people went fairly giddy with the idea of a £600 fortress. Certainly a rich man's toy.
However, that is not really the case, and I did not really twig this until I started reading the Dreadhold Battletome (and, it should be pointed out, you are only going to be reading that if you buy into the idea of the Dreadhold in the first place, and if you have already decided not to spend that £600...).
What only really began to come across in that book is that you don't need the big fortress. You just need one tower to start off with - there is plenty of utility in it. Then add a Bastion. Maybe get a wall or two when you order some paints. Do it gradually - the book actively supports picking up bits and bobs here and there for the Dreadhold, maybe, maybe with the idea that in a year or two you will have something approaching that big fortress.
I am not sure that was communicated particularly well. It appears at first glance that you need to be Lord Rothschild to get into Dreadhold battles, but that is not really the case.
Anyway, communication not always the best in all areas.
A points system in the books that allows the phrase "2000 points" to be understood universally.
Why do you assume that is automatically more balanced than a system developed by a community? I have a feeling there are many on these forums who may disagree.
I'm sorry, but I really, really don't care for this argument. At some point, the world has to make sense.
I am actually with you on this I like my fantasy to be internally consistent too.
However, what happens on the tabletop is subject to the players' own interpretation. A unit in close combat fires on an enemy further away? Well, assuming they have LOS (which is going to restrict this a great deal anyway), maybe some of their guys pull back from the fighting for a moment to get the shots in (they are not all going to hit, so maybe some of those misses are not actual misses but the guys still battling away who did not get to fire?). Maybe some of them temporarily get some high ground, a fallen statue or whatever is close by, to shoot over someone's heads. The combat in this game seems to be more fluid, so it will take an adjustment from the old rank and file way of doing things.
(and this will really set some people off: If it does not make sense to you to make any given shot... consider not doing it ).
Genuinely curious - would you mind mocking up a few balanced against each other armies for me, then? Preferably with as much variation as possible; goblins, ogres, the odd lizardman army, so on and so forth. Just so I could see what you'd consider fairly evenly matched. If you don't have the time or inclination, that's totally understandable, I'd just like to get your perspective on that.
I did not post that comment but, if you are interested, I could dig up some lists tomorrow that we have actually used. Would be happy to go through the thought processes that went to create them too...
autumnlotus wrote: I can say, after playing several games of AOS since its release, that I disagree with most of your points.
You are welcome to, Sir - always happy to chat/debate about gaming
My point being? The misconceptions you mention are purely opinions on both sides. There is no "mistake" on the opposing side, we simply disagree and have pointed out details of why we feel it is incorrect on what you proclaim since the game was released.
On the points side, you are right. There are plenty of gamers who don't want to play any other way and AoS, as presented, will be an issue for them. The flip side is that the game is still new and they already have a variety of points systems to choose from.
That said, there are also other points I raised that are just flat wrong. That is what I suggested people look at. Should point out, I am not looking to convert, but if someone believes something that is based on an erroneous foundation... well, it has to be worth at least a discussion, right?
If people want to fight with unlisted armies then crack on, but balance is something needed in all games to make them work.
This is something I would call you on - miniatures/war games have existed for decades without a balancing points system. Perversely, it was GW that had a big hand in getting people to rely on points.
Llamahead wrote: Elephant in the Room here. Regimental Formation Combat. I wanted a game of Fantasy Battles not a skirmish game. I wanted mass regiments and full scale battle tactics rather than skirmish warfare as an option it's fine but it doesn't replace Warhammer in my mind the scale is wrong.
Here's the thing. You had it (8e) and you didn't support it.
I don't mean you personally (!), but there was not enough interest in WHFB to sustain its life (and the cracks were appearing long before 8e - this has been coming for a while). No one yet knows whether AoS is the answer, but something had to change. We can debate about whether AoS was the correct step, and I am sure there are people who will, but something had to be done.
At the end of the day, if people had been buying into WHFB at the same rate as they do 40k, it is entirely possible that AoS would never have appeared.
It gets out the door because the company itself doesn't care enough about the game, only the models.
Well, as I said in the original post, a company cannot care about things. It is a company.
Shotgun wrote: A well designed and put together game doesn't need internet posts saying "you are doing it wrong" or "you need to look at it this way". A well designed and put together game flows simply out of the box and shows its depth the longer you put time into it.
You see, that is what I would argue AoS is in the process of. That does not mean everyone should like it.
Shotgun wrote: It certainly doesn't need posts saying "don't believe all the other information you are reading about this game."
I presume you are referring to me, but I did not say that.
Ah, now, I missed this - where did the community get together and vote on this?
Sorry, that was facetious. However, sweeping statements like this is where a lot of the issues start. Come on, the 'gaming community' does not speak with one voice, and has no system for deciding what the majority opinion is. Can we agree to leave that behind?
Orock wrote: Your no points....point is inaccurate. People play to win, not to make sure little Timmy feels the game is close enough that he could have won too.
I have played to win, it is true, though I have never been in position to gauge little Timmy's feelings.
But here is the thing - I have also played with no expectation or intention of winning, where what happens on the table is more important than who wins. There have been times when I have wanted my opponent to win because it would be more interesting in the context of the campaign we are playing.
And I know I am not alone in that style of play.
Point being, winning is not the only reason people play.
Orock wrote: The non summoning armies unsurprisingly wanted to use the ruleset with the harshest restrictions on summoning, which pretty much made the two undead and lizardman players just quit. Some wanted solely wounds based, where things like bertonian knights on horses pumping out stupid amounts of attacks was king.
Truth is GW sat down and said "how can we make the pretense of a game to sell anyone anything they might want to use?". AoS is the results of the sales teams input, not fame designers. For the " leader" in gaming companies its an insulting half assed scam they are trying to justify as open enough to change it to your likeing.
Okay, let's be honest here, just for a moment.
That is not the truth, is it? At best, it is a guess. The truth is that no one here knows what conversations took place at GW to create AoS. Putting words in people's mouths may not be the most helpful/productive things we could be doing.
"Yes this is an issue but PLAY IT MOREER AND LONGERER until you reeeeaaaaallllyyy know the game. Then it's only a little bit less worse" is all I practically read out of that.
Fair enough - but I don't think it was my post you read, because I did not say that.
By saying this you are acknowledging that the game IS imbalanced, that the game DOES have huge issues
Firstly, I did not say it.
Second, what you are doing is putting words in someone else's mouth, and that is very rude. I would much prefer it if we could converse as gentlemen. You up for that?
Meow!
I love how this post was a simple opinion on how others may be casting judgement before realising why AoS is how it is, then people who don't like AoS flame him for having an opinion...
Keep on defending your opinions Matt, even if I did disagree it's not my place to say your wrong.
LucidNinja wrote: Meow!
I love how this post was a simple opinion on how others may be casting judgement before realising why AoS is how it is, then people who don't like AoS flame him for having an opinion...
Keep on defending your opinions Matt, even if I did disagree it's not my place to say your wrong.
I never said I disliked AoS and if he is going to post his opinion on a discussion board he should be prepared to defend it.
Genuinely curious - would you mind mocking up a few balanced against each other armies for me, then? Preferably with as much variation as possible; goblins, ogres, the odd lizardman army, so on and so forth. Just so I could see what you'd consider fairly evenly matched. If you don't have the time or inclination, that's totally understandable, I'd just like to get your perspective on that.
That's a lot of effort for something that has exactly zero chance of changing your views. I feel like if you let go of the concept of "balance", you'll have a good time of Age of Sigmar. The game itself isn't broken, just the game while holding a certain perspective. It's not something I can prove (or would bother to try, as AoS opposition refuses to cede ground on any point, EVER, like a flat earth creationist debating an evolutionary biologist), but I have fun with AoS and I think my expectations are in line with the design philosophy behind it, and maybe that's why I can enjoy it as much as I do while others only see red. As long as I felt like I played a good game, it doesn't matter to me who begins with what advantage or disadvantage, or ultimately who won. Some of the best games I've ever played, I never had a chance of winning.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
welshhoppo wrote: It shouldn't be up to the player base to design the damn game, it's up to the designers to design the thing.
I know! Nintendo just released Mario Maker. They expect players to make their own Mario levels... like fething savages. And don't get me started on Minecraft. What the hell are you supposed to do in that game? And geez, Counter-Strike and DotA started as mods, so obviously player contributions to gaming are unnecessary and unwanted. Leave it to the professionals, I say!
Every single player ever, goes into a game with the intention of completing it. Hopefully by winning. You don't play a PlayStation game to not finish the game, you play because you want to get to the end and beat it.
Nah. Some of my favorite games, I've never come close to winning or literally cannot win. There are a lot of reasons to play games, and I wouldn't say that any one of them is the right way to do it.
I know I was being over simplistic. But they have released a mine craft story mode.... So illuminati confirmed and all that. Plus I used to love little big planet.
But my point stands, you tend to do those in private or with a bunch of close friends and the basics are all the same. You have a base to start on. Mine craft has the block system. It would be like walking into a mine craft game and someone decided that the blocks are actually 1 x 3 x 15 and you need a diamond tools to cut mud, but obsidian can be punched to death. Same for counter strike and everything else. They all have a basic engine.
AoS just feels like they forgot to fill in the parameters, most of it is there but the glue holding it together is missing.
Great posts Matt. I agree with all of your points. I loved WHFB from 3e all the way to to 8e, but it had grown stale to me after so many years and as you said something had to be done. Around me it had all but died only myself and one other friend still showed interest , everyone else went to historicals.
MongooseMatt wrote: All my favourite characters are gone! Just about all Chaos characters are still present. The Chaos Gods took their favourite servants and moved them to the Mortal Realms. Your Glottkin is still working hard for Nurgle (and doing a damn good job, as it happens, seriously kicking Alarielle’s rear end).
Obviously, Alarielle is still around, and she seems to be significantly more powerful. Tyrion and Teclis are still a thing.
Speaking from an artistic point of view, Gotrek had to die. Of all the characters from the world-that-was, he was the one who was always going to be killed…
We don’t yet know the full extent of who survived the End Times and while many have gone, there are still strong links to the Old World.
Manfred, for example, has just popped up...
Just putting it out there but a ton of characters we simply don't know if they are still around or not, and that in itself is a huge problem.
MongooseMatt wrote: There are no tactics in Age of Sigmar – just dice rolling You have not got to grips with the game. If you really believe there are no tactics present, you have made that judgement too quickly. I’ll give some brief examples;
Spoiler:
Age of Sigmar is a very mobile game, with a lot of movement and units exerting ‘zones’ of control (effectively, everyone has a 3” area around them that ‘traps’ enemy models). This makes movement very important, and leads to the ability to bait enemy models and block their own movement.
The randomisation of who goes first in a turn (and the possibility that you can have two turns in a row) is a big deal, and it will catch you out when you first play. However, once you get a few games under your belt, you start to figure out how to compensate for it. Basically, you can no longer march up your rock hard close combat unit and be ready for a charge – there is every chance you will be the one charged, and you need to pre-plan how you will counter that. Pre-planning is a basic definition of the use of tactics…
Another example; retreating. You don’t see this done too often in AoS, and that is because it can be quite hard to pull off. When you retreat a unit out of combat, you are basically ensuring it will not fight that turn and, even if you run, it is probable that the enemy will simply charge again and catch up with you. The trick here is to feed the enemy someone else, tying them up (remember the zones of control!).
For example, your elite archers get charged – this is bad news because even though they can theoretically shoot in close combat, many dedicated ranged units get bonuses to firing if the enemy is not right in front of them. So, if you stay there, you will be firing less effectively, and likely getting torn up by a unit that can fight well in close combat. If you just retreat, the enemy will soon catch up and finish you off, and barely miss a beat in doing it.
However, if you retreat your archer unit, and then charge in with your cavalry, the enemy will be unable to follow up, and your archers will be able to reposition themselves and keep firing in the next round.
This sounds simple, but with everything else going on in a turn, it is not always that easy to pull off.
And I have not even touched upon the synergies between units which are far, far more important than they are in Fantasy Battle or 40k…
I get what you're trying to say there. I really do. I think the problem is that most people aren't literally complaining that there is zero tactics and we all might as well play snakes and ladders, people are complaining that it is tactically very shallow. All those examples you brought up there are really just screening and threat range, which are themselves rather basic. And the two turns in a row thing is just bad, yes you can plan for it but planning for something decided by a single dice roll like that is not a part of 'tactics'. You should be planning for what your opponent will be trying to do to disrupt your plans.
MongooseMatt wrote: There is no balance in Age of Sigmar There is, but it is in your hands.
Even if we leave the ‘dick issue’ to one side (basically, don’t be one, and have as much consideration for your opponent’s fun as your own), there are now a handful of points systems available for AoS, and they are all community-made. As time goes on, they will become more accurate and more balanced. They are there and available for your use right now.
This feels more like a band aid than an actual justification for it. I'd put it to you that those community points systems should not have to exist because, even if points aren't being used (historicals often don't use them), there should be some way to play a fair game out of the box with only the rules provided from the actual manufacturer. Timmy and Billy getting their first AoS models together aren't going to know about the community comp and they aren't going to know what is better than what until after a lot of trial and error.
MongooseMatt wrote: But they could have added a points system, and all those ‘narrative’ gamers could have just ignored them – then everyone would have got what they wanted This is true (leaving aside the benefits of community-pointing for a moment). However, there is another problem and, speaking as a games designer, this is a very real one.
If you put a points-based system in, 99% of all players will use it to the exclusion of all else. Yes, they could just ignore points. But they won’t. Gamers just won’t.
Doesn't that just suggest that 99% of all players want a point system?
MongooseMatt wrote: “The game plays like there is no difference between a goblin and a super warrior Stormcast” Another direct quote, and it is a little bit troubling that someone actually thinks this. Of course there is a difference – that goblin is going to get stomped by the Stormcast in a stand up fight. In fact, a unit of five Stormcasts is likely to trounce a veritable mob of goblins unless they are well supported.
But the game does in fact give the sudden death advantage to the 65 sigmarines over the 100 goblins doesn't it?
MongooseMatt wrote: Games Workshop does not care about gamers Games Workshop is a company. It is incapable of caring about anything.
However, having spent some time with some of the design studio at GWHQ in the past, I can tell you that there are individuals there who very much do care about gamers. They are extremely enthusiastic about games (and yes, they play games other than those produced by GW!), and they see their job as communicating that enthusiasm to you, the gamer.
You know I don't doubt this, I really don't. But it doesn't show at all thanks to the higher ups policies of never interacting with your fanbase ever (and those little jems we get like "our customers favourite part of the hobby is buying stuff from us"). I am sure there are people inside GW really excited about the game but they are not jumping on the official podcast to talk fluff, their painters are not jumping on their own forum to give painting tips, and they are not getting on board with the convention circuit to chat to their fans.
You have to admit that from the outside they are a very cold, faceless kind of company compared to the likes of PP, CB, Mantic and the like.
Kilkrazy wrote: It could have been so much better!
No it really couldn't have.
This keeps coming up as a sort of middle-ground "I disagree with AoS, but I don't want to sound like I'm attacking it" sort of statement, and its complete bullgak. (I want to emphasize, because this doesn't really come across in text, that I am in no way mad at you or trying to attack you myself.)
If everyone who said "it could be better" sat down and designed AoS it would have basically nothing that makes the game what it is. I'm not saying the game has no flaws, or that even its fans don't disagree or want to tweak certain elements (as illustrated by changes made in various comp systems).
But I really feel people need to get over this idea of AoS needing to be something that fits the way they play. Its the equivalent of saying "Well Warmachine could allow for so much more creativity if they removed points and encouraged players to build scenarios and armies entirely on the basis of cocreated lore", when the Warmachine very much doesn't care about being that game.
TheCustomLime wrote:
LucidNinja wrote: Meow!
I love how this post was a simple opinion on how others may be casting judgement before realising why AoS is how it is, then people who don't like AoS flame him for having an opinion...
Keep on defending your opinions Matt, even if I did disagree it's not my place to say your wrong.
I never said I disliked AoS and if he is going to post his opinion on a discussion board he should be prepared to defend it.
Defending his opinion from what? An endless stream of devoted contrarians positing strawman fallacies, appeals to emotion, and ad hominem?
Basically every thread has gone the same way:
"I like AoS, it does these things in a way that I think works pretty well."
"Well you're wrong."
"But all I'm saying is that it works well for this way that I want to play, so maybe other people might like that as well."
"No you're just wrong. The game doesn't do what I want so clearly I'm right. Full stop. Anyone else's preferences for their hobbies be damned."
And then it just devolves into both sides throwing ad hominem, trying to pass opinion as fact, and generally making the community look like donkey hats.
Yes, Jack Flask, from people who disagree with him. You know, like every topic in a discussion forum?
If you have problems with people's conduct click the yellow triangle.
I also like how you painted the not Pro-AoS crowd as "contrarians". As if the only reason they don't like Age of Sigmar is just so that they can go against the crowd. Way to dismiss the opposition!
Kilkrazy wrote: It could have been so much better!
No it really couldn't have.
This keeps coming up as a sort of middle-ground "I disagree with AoS, but I don't want to sound like I'm attacking it" sort of statement, and its complete bullgak. (I want to emphasize, because this doesn't really come across in text, that I am in no way mad at you or trying to attack you myself.)
If everyone who said "it could be better" sat down and designed AoS it would have basically nothing that makes the game what it is. I'm not saying the game has no flaws, or that even its fans don't disagree or want to tweak certain elements (as illustrated by changes made in various comp systems).
But I really feel people need to get over this idea of AoS needing to be something that fits the way they play. Its the equivalent of saying "Well Warmachine could allow for so much more creativity if they removed points and encouraged players to build scenarios and armies entirely on the basis of cocreated lore", when the Warmachine very much doesn't care about being that game.
TheCustomLime wrote:
LucidNinja wrote: Meow!
I love how this post was a simple opinion on how others may be casting judgement before realising why AoS is how it is, then people who don't like AoS flame him for having an opinion...
Keep on defending your opinions Matt, even if I did disagree it's not my place to say your wrong.
I never said I disliked AoS and if he is going to post his opinion on a discussion board he should be prepared to defend it.
Defending his opinion from what? An endless stream of devoted contrarians positing strawman fallacies, appeals to emotion, and ad hominem?
Basically every thread has gone the same way:
"I like AoS, it does these things in a way that I think works pretty well."
"Well you're wrong."
"But all I'm saying is that it works well for this way that I want to play, so maybe other people might like that as well."
"No you're just wrong. The game doesn't do what I want so clearly I'm right. Full stop. Anyone else's preferences for their hobbies be damned."
And then it just devolves into both sides throwing ad hominem, trying to pass opinion as fact, and generally making the community look like donkey hats.
So the game's not perfect, but if we say that we're mindless haterz.
TheCustomLime wrote:Yes, Jack Flask, from people who disagree with him. You know, like every topic in a discussion forum?
If you have problems with people's conduct click the yellow triangle.
My problem with people's conduct is something the moderators have consistently refused to address, so why bother. They've demonstrated that they don't care actually care about peoples conduct or effort to contribute so long as they put on a facade of politeness. Its the Southern US "..., God bless her soul" gak in another form.
I respect the time and effort they put in, but at the same time I can help but feel a little annoyed. What are all these negative posts actually adding to this board? What are they adding to the conversation? Why is it that apparently only people who like AoS the ones who have to put up with this? No other board has a contigent of the same people who admit to not liking the game, and have no intention to ever like the game, constantly filling their threads with a constant stream of the same opinions stated like facts.
We all know the answer to that, because the majority of people who don't like or have no interest in other games, have the tact to not post about things they don't like.
Its like going to a biology conference only to have some guy show up in the back, banging pots and yelling "feth evolution it offends my religion", who then cites freedom of speech as justification for being a massive gakker. It pisses off everyone their to engage in something they're interested in, and it makes the other side of the conversation look bad.
And this is just some peoples hobby.
I also like how you painted the not Pro-AoS crowd as "contrarians". As if the only reason they don't like Age of Sigmar is just so that they can go against the crowd. Way to dismiss the opposition!
When you see the same faces show up in every thread that tries to discuss the game in general, just so that they can trot out the same tired arguments, yeah I'd call that being a contrarian. Its not like they post any other time in the board to contribute. Then they accuse everyone posting about the ways they utilize the rules as being unnecessarily positive. As if liking AoS basically makes you a shill, con man, or liar.
Oh and if anyone expresses for a desire for productive threads on this board like every other? Well, they're an advocate of censorship and just want an overly positive hugbox.
Kilkrazy wrote: It could have been so much better!
No it really couldn't have.
This keeps coming up as a sort of middle-ground "I disagree with AoS, but I don't want to sound like I'm attacking it" sort of statement, and its complete bullgak. (I want to emphasize, because this doesn't really come across in text, that I am in no way mad at you or trying to attack you myself.)
If everyone who said "it could be better" sat down and designed AoS it would have basically nothing that makes the game what it is. I'm not saying the game has no flaws, or that even its fans don't disagree or want to tweak certain elements (as illustrated by changes made in various comp systems).
But I really feel people need to get over this idea of AoS needing to be something that fits the way they play. Its the equivalent of saying "Well Warmachine could allow for so much more creativity if they removed points and encouraged players to build scenarios and armies entirely on the basis of cocreated lore", when the Warmachine very much doesn't care about being that game.
TheCustomLime wrote:
LucidNinja wrote: Meow!
I love how this post was a simple opinion on how others may be casting judgement before realising why AoS is how it is, then people who don't like AoS flame him for having an opinion...
Keep on defending your opinions Matt, even if I did disagree it's not my place to say your wrong.
I never said I disliked AoS and if he is going to post his opinion on a discussion board he should be prepared to defend it.
Defending his opinion from what? An endless stream of devoted contrarians positing strawman fallacies, appeals to emotion, and ad hominem?
Basically every thread has gone the same way:
"I like AoS, it does these things in a way that I think works pretty well."
"Well you're wrong."
"But all I'm saying is that it works well for this way that I want to play, so maybe other people might like that as well."
"No you're just wrong. The game doesn't do what I want so clearly I'm right. Full stop. Anyone else's preferences for their hobbies be damned."
And then it just devolves into both sides throwing ad hominem, trying to pass opinion as fact, and generally making the community look like donkey hats.
So the game's not perfect, but if we say that we're mindless haterz.
Well if you are going to go to a board about something you don't like, reading threads about something you don't like, posting about how you don't like something that you've been claiming not to like for over three months now? I'll let you conclude.
There is no right or wrong answer about AoS. If you don't like it and have no intention of liking it then why not move on? There are plenty of other games out there, is it really so bad that the people who enjoy AoS have such a game and want a community to go with it?
Jack Flask wrote: Its like going to a biology conference only to have some guy show up in the back, banging pots and yelling "feth evolution it offends my religion", who then cites freedom of speech as justification for being a massive gakker. It pisses off everyone their to engage in something they're interested in, and it makes the other side of the conversation look bad.
You realize that evolution vs creationism debates are very popular and, since people are debating instead of yelling (almost like Dakka rules apply there too) it actually serves a valuable purpose.
TheCustomLime wrote:Yes, Jack Flask, from people who disagree with him. You know, like every topic in a discussion forum?
If you have problems with people's conduct click the yellow triangle.
My problem with people's conduct is something the moderators have consistently refused to address, so why bother. They've demonstrated that they don't care actually care about peoples conduct or effort to contribute so long as they put on a facade of politeness. Its the Southern US "..., God bless her soul" gak in another form.
I respect the time and effort they put in, but at the same time I can help but feel a little annoyed. What are all these negative posts actually adding to this board? What are they adding to the conversation? Why is it that apparently only people who like AoS the ones who have to put up with this? No other board has a contigent of the same people who admit to not liking the game, and have no intention to ever like the game, constantly filling their threads with a constant stream of the same opinions stated like facts.
We all know the answer to that, because the majority of people who don't like or have no interest in other games, have the tact to not post about things they don't like.
Its like going to a biology conference only to have some guy show up in the back, banging pots and yelling "feth evolution it offends my religion", who then cites freedom of speech as justification for being a massive gakker. It pisses off everyone their to engage in something they're interested in, and it makes the other side of the conversation look bad.
And this is just some peoples hobby.
I can understand your frustration with the state of the AoS board. I do think some people in the Anti-AoS crowd can be very rude at times and do seem to come on just to piss all over people who like the game.
Let me just make this absolutely clear. I like Age of Sigmar. I think it's a dumb little game to facilitate a mock battle between two collections of awesome miniatures. I respect that. I enjoy that kind of simplicity. If I wanted a tactically deep game to pit my wits against my opponent's I would go play WM/H, X-wing or Infinity. It's same relationship I have with 40k. I enjoy the game despite it's deep, deep flaws.
But here is my problem with the pro-AoS crowd: A lot of them act like there is nothing wrong with the game. I think that is what draws a lot of vitriol to these boards: the denial of the most ardent defenders of this game. I mean, most of the OP's argument boils down to "There's nothing wrong with Age of Sigmar as long as you ignore the problems" and people are responding with "Great post!" or "Well said!". It's like they'll agree to anything posted as long as it's positive. Frankly I can't blame them. It must be tough being an Age of Sigmar fan on the internet with how much flak the game gets. Any bit of positivity must be nice to read just for a change. Surely, though, you are doing a disservice to the game if you just happily agree with blind optimism. Blind optimism is just as bad as blind vitriol, imo.
I would've agreed with the OP if he said that "Okay, Age of Sigmar may have it's problems, but here are some solutions to help you have a good time". Maybe I'm wrong about the OP and he does recognize that AoS has problems but he just doesn't think that these are necessarily issues.
I also like how you painted the not Pro-AoS crowd as "contrarians". As if the only reason they don't like Age of Sigmar is just so that they can go against the crowd. Way to dismiss the opposition!
When you see the same faces show up in every thread that tries to discuss the game in general, just so that they can trot out the same tired arguments, yeah I'd call that being a contrarian. Its not like they post any other time in the board to contribute. Then they accuse everyone posting about the ways they utilize the rules as being unnecessarily positive. As if liking AoS basically makes you a shill, con man, or liar.
Oh and if anyone expresses for a desire for productive threads on this board like every other? Well, they're an advocate of censorship and just want an overly positive hugbox.
Again, I think the problem isn't that people are trying to make the game work. I think the problem a lot of these posters have is that the pro-AoS crowd just denies any problems the game has. Though you are right that some do just like to jump on the "Let's bash Age of Sigmar!" band wagon for some easy 'internet points'.
Kilkrazy wrote: It could have been so much better!
No it really couldn't have. This keeps coming up as a sort of middle-ground "I disagree with AoS, but I don't want to sound like I'm attacking it" sort of statement, and its complete bullgak. (I want to emphasize, because this doesn't really come across in text, that I am in no way mad at you or trying to attack you myself.)
If everyone who said "it could be better" sat down and designed AoS it would have basically nothing that makes the game what it is. I'm not saying the game has no flaws, or that even its fans don't disagree or want to tweak certain elements (as illustrated by changes made in various comp systems). But I really feel people need to get over this idea of AoS needing to be something that fits the way they play. Its the equivalent of saying "Well Warmachine could allow for so much more creativity if they removed points and encouraged players to build scenarios and armies entirely on the basis of cocreated lore", when the Warmachine very much doesn't care about being that game.
You contradict yourself.
So the game has flaws and has a lot of people tweaking and chomping things, but there really us no way it could have been better? You know... Flaws wtc.
Matt - thanks for taking the time to go through and respond to a few of my counterpoints. I can't say I agree with you, but you absolutely seem like someone I'd have a blast playing a game with.
Those are fair enough points, but whatever was going to happen after the End Times some characters were not going to make it, and each one was always going to be someone's favourite. My point, and reading back I only kinda backed into it, was the remaining links to the Old World that are present. It is not a completely clean sheet, and while it is not the Old World, it is still Warhammer.
That was what I was trying to say
That's fair, and it's one of the reasons I think they should have either kept Warhammer as a setting, rather than a storyline (I mean, once you retcon something as big as Storm of Chaos, might as well stick to the status quo) or quietly retired it and replaced it with something entirely new - Age of Siegfried or something. It'd still be a 'replacement' and there would still be much gnashing of teeth - I, for one, would be among that group - but not blowing up the Old World might have soothed some ruffled feathers.
Not yet. There have been bits and pieces of 'normal' folk popping up in the new fiction, but they have had no focus as yet - perhaps understandably, as there are bigger things going on right now.
However, the Realms seem to be, to all intents and purposes, infinite - I think that may very much have been the point behind them. No reason those characters you mention cannot/will not exist. Still early days, but I would venture the Mortal Realms were designed to serve as the foundation for a multitude of stories.
Still early days - neither the Old World nor 40k had the superstructure, as you say, right from the start. They did not kick off with a major event either.
I think this may be something worth reserving judgement on. If we still have not seen anything like this in the next year or so, may be worth revisiting!
There needs to be that kind of focus on the little people from the start, though, and the infinite-ness of the Realms is a major weakness in the setting. You know GW's just going to throw out AdjectiveNoun names themed around whatever Realm they're in as impressive set-pieces for some big battle and then never mention them again. Altdorf won't get a chance to grow, at least not until the dust settles, and that's a huge problem. They're not creating a setting and universe from whole (and occasionally borrowed, admittedly) cloth this time, they're replacing an incredibly rich and detailed world that a lot of people really liked. Comparisons are inevitable, and 'wait and see if it turns out to be just as good' doesn't get many people paying GW prices.
Now, if they REALLY came out swinging, released giant glorious books about the worlds (beyond Stormcast killing people in them) and tantalizing bits about the civilizations that fell during the Age of Chaos and actually came out and told us what all the different factions were up to (with a focus on their new poster boys, of course, but not the overwhelming one we've gotten), THEN maybe we could talk about reserving judgment to see where the setting goes. As it is, though, it feels very shallow.
However, what happens on the tabletop is subject to the players' own interpretation. A unit in close combat fires on an enemy further away? Well, assuming they have LOS (which is going to restrict this a great deal anyway), maybe some of their guys pull back from the fighting for a moment to get the shots in (they are not all going to hit, so maybe some of those misses are not actual misses but the guys still battling away who did not get to fire?). Maybe some of them temporarily get some high ground, a fallen statue or whatever is close by, to shoot over someone's heads. The combat in this game seems to be more fluid, so it will take an adjustment from the old rank and file way of doing things.
It is, but at some point the rules have to back that up. KoW, for example, abstracts in a way that makes sense. You don't take models out of units because it's at a scale where the unit is representational of a regiment; the models aren't supposed to be one for one. Age of Sigmar is more of a skirmish level game, and it makes sense for them to have the kind detail in the rules that leaves room for giving you consequences for shooting in combat.
At the very least, a morale penalty for your own men dropping giant rocks next to you because they really want to splat that enemy general you're trying to stab would be nice...you could call it the "I Never Liked Karl Anyway" rule, and I'd be a happy man.
No, I'm not adding it myself, that's on GW's table
I did not post that comment but, if you are interested, I could dig up some lists tomorrow that we have actually used. Would be happy to go through the thought processes that went to create them too...
I would, thank you very much if you'd like to take the time! Mostly, I'm interested in how various themed armies that were perfectly possible in Warhammer work in Age of Sigmar - how does one go about balancing goblins against ogres out of the box, for example?
If you haven't done that, of course, that's totally fine, but my poor gobbos are a particular sore spot for me.
Sqorgar wrote: That's a lot of effort for something that has exactly zero chance of changing your views. I feel like if you let go of the concept of "balance", you'll have a good time of Age of Sigmar. The game itself isn't broken, just the game while holding a certain perspective. It's not something I can prove (or would bother to try, as AoS opposition refuses to cede ground on any point, EVER, like a flat earth creationist debating an evolutionary biologist), but I have fun with AoS and I think my expectations are in line with the design philosophy behind it, and maybe that's why I can enjoy it as much as I do while others only see red. As long as I felt like I played a good game, it doesn't matter to me who begins with what advantage or disadvantage, or ultimately who won. Some of the best games I've ever played, I never had a chance of winning.
Yes, that is a lot of effort, which is why I said 'if you have the time or inclination'. And no, I'm not going to end up playing Age of Sigmar, it's very clearly not intended as the sort of game or setting I enjoy, but I do like to see how people try and make things they enjoy work, and I'm curious about different people's viewpoints on this whole thing. I, for example, probably wouldn't ever argue for a game using the phrase "if you let go of the concept of 'balance', you'll have a good time". Thanks for comparing me to a flat earth creationist, though. It's not that I can't enjoy losing - my absolute favorite game of Warhammer was one that I lost - but I'm not really interested in doing the designer's work for them. Coming up with scenarios? Absolutely! Writing background? Just try and stop me! I'm not going to go back and do something as basic as making a point system, though. That's their job, not mine.
In the end, you're not going to convince me, I'm not going to convince you, and I'm certainly not going to convince Matt - we've clearly got different tastes, and that's fine. I am, however, enjoying seeing the other side of things.
Kudos for bringing it up and trying to defend a game you like, but I've got a few minor points (I'm largely in agreement though - it does get bashed mercilessly):
Speaking from an artistic point of view, Gotrek had to die. Of all the characters from the world-that-was, he was the one who was always going to be killed…
Wasn't there a running theme in the Gotrek books that he was somehow corrupted/charmed by his axe that was making him largely invincible? Surely out of all of the realms of man/dwarf, he'd be the least likely to be killed off? They live to hundreds of years old and he can quickly heal the most serious of wounds and take on any foe? I don't get how it makes sense to have killed him off. Felix? Aye, he'd have died of old age at some point, but Gotrek?
Age of Sigmar is failing No one (except a few at GWHQ) knows anything about how the game has been selling. One store, or even a bunch of Internet forums, do not a firm basis make for this conclusion. The first clue we will get will be next year in GW’s financial reports, and we may not really know for 2-3 years.
True, but there's a huge amount of anecdotal evidence about it not doing well, and almost none about it doing well. Can we assume for now it's not doing that well until we discover otherwise?
Shooting in close combat makes no sense Sure it does. It is a different type of fighting to what you might be used to. I’ll give an example using 40k, as everyone will be familiar with that – feel free to substitute for Bloodreavers and Stormcasts.
A Dark Angels Tactical Squad charges the remnants of an Ork mob cowering behind a barricade, determined to shift them and claim this flank of the battle. One Tactical Marine leaps over the barricade, and kicks an Ork in the chest, leaving it flat on the floor. Stamping on its head with an armoured foot, he turns as another Ork rushes him with a massive cleaver. Raising his Bolter, he fires three rounds which tear through the alien’s chest. Giving praise to the Emperor, he continues firing as the rest of the Orks flee from the assault of the Dark Angels.
Can you see that happening in your head? It is a more cinematic approach to combat but, whether it is your cup of tea or not, it is one that works.
I can see it to a limited extend with automatic hand weapons. Would said Dark Angel be able to reload a bow and fire at another unit across the field? No. It'd have almost no accuracy, he'd leave himself wide open and he'd have other things to focus on. The Bolt gun/pistol can be fired at point blank range with one hand.
There is no balance in Age of Sigmar There is, but it is in your hands.
So no, there isn't.
It is just stupid to stack models on top of one another Yes it is. But it does not happen in Age of Sigmar.
The rules imply it does?
Bases are ignored for the purposes of measuring ranges. That is all.
Yup, and ranges are measured figure to figure, so the only way various combats work is to either overlap bases, or to pretend they are closer than they are.
welshhoppo wrote: It shouldn't be up to the player base to design the damn game, it's up to the designers to design the thing.
I know! Nintendo just released Mario Maker. They expect players to make their own Mario levels... like fething savages. And don't get me started on Minecraft. What the hell are you supposed to do in that game? And geez, Counter-Strike and DotA started as mods, so obviously player contributions to gaming are unnecessary and unwanted. Leave it to the professionals, I say!
The *point* of Minecraft is to make things, and the Mario Maker lets you create new levels for a platform game to enhance it. With AoS, a lot of the effort is completely unrelated to the core point of the game - to play the game. Some people like writing rules/scenarios, but why would they choose to do it with AoS over literally any other tabletop game?
If everyone who said "it could be better" sat down and designed AoS it would have basically nothing that makes the game what it is. I'm not saying the game has no flaws, or that even its fans don't disagree or want to tweak certain elements (as illustrated by changes made in various comp systems).
It could be written much better (in terms of clarity) without changing anything. And it could have been written much better without changing the feel of things.
welshhoppo wrote: It shouldn't be up to the player base to design the damn game, it's up to the designers to design the thing.
I know! Nintendo just released Mario Maker. They expect players to make their own Mario levels... like fething savages. And don't get me started on Minecraft. What the hell are you supposed to do in that game? And geez, Counter-Strike and DotA started as mods, so obviously player contributions to gaming are unnecessary and unwanted. Leave it to the professionals, I say!
Both Mario Maker and Minecraft are expressly about using your imagination to create new things. That is the point of those games.
You want to compare it properly, compare it to D&D 5e. Homebrew material is very common with D&D, and it works well because the developers actually published a finished, balanced, and good ruleset, not this sack of gak we all call Age of Sigmar.
ASIDE from that, the developers are fething paid to create a whole, complete game. They clearly can't be arsed to do so.
welshhoppo wrote: It shouldn't be up to the player base to design the damn game, it's up to the designers to design the thing.
I know! Nintendo just released Mario Maker. They expect players to make their own Mario levels... like fething savages. And don't get me started on Minecraft. What the hell are you supposed to do in that game? And geez, Counter-Strike and DotA started as mods, so obviously player contributions to gaming are unnecessary and unwanted. Leave it to the professionals, I say!
Both Mario Maker and Minecraft are expressly about using your imagination to create new things. That is the point of those games.
You want to compare it properly, compare it to D&D 5e. Homebrew material is very common with D&D, and it works well because the developers actually published a finished, balanced, and good ruleset, not this sack of gak we all call Age of Sigmar.
ASIDE from that, the developers are fething paid to create a whole, complete game. They clearly can't be arsed to do so.
Considering how the 40k team "designs" the game, I am actually amazed their game systems haven't collapsed already. The "Here's this "cool" looking miniature now make rules for it" approach is.... lacking, to say the least.
Warmachine - there are a number of rules in WMH that I think don't make a massive amount of sense, but that's just the way PP decided to abstract 'real' combat into a tabletop game format.
I very much dislike FFG's business model for X-wing.
(Yay! Just spent £30 on ships - now to spend another £40 on ships I have no intention of ever using in order to get the rules I want for them!)
But I can still enjoy both games, and don't feel the need to berate people or constantly post in those forums to let people know I dislike these elements.
AoS' pros and cons are now extremely well documented.
You either like it or don't.
There *is* a difference between discussing and critiquing a system that you are involved in, and simply butting in to complain about something that you aren't.
To go back to the evolution/religion example, there is a difference between a debate between the two sides and simply standing at the back shouting and waving placards.
It's evident from these boards that even within the (broadly) 'pro' segments, there are differences of opinion - different comp systems being a prime example.
I'm not after an echo chamber, but if you do not and never will play AoS, then I genuinely don't understand why you feel you have anything to add to the debate, especially on the purely subjective sections of the discussion - which frankly is 99.99% of it. It is, after all, a leisure activity.
Or do people just not have enough ulcers already?
LucidNinja wrote: Meow!
I love how this post was a simple opinion on how others may be casting judgement before realising why AoS is how it is, then people who don't like AoS flame him for having an opinion...
Keep on defending your opinions Matt, even if I did disagree it's not my place to say your wrong.
Looked at from a different angle, it was a troll post in the beginning, and your post simply adds to that.
Do you have an opinion about the game, rather than whether other people should or should not be allowed to express their opinions about the game depending on whether you agree with them?
jonolikespie wrote: Just putting it out there but a ton of characters we simply don't know if they are still around or not, and that in itself is a huge problem.
Well, it is not really a huge problem, is it?
For the models that were in the current range, you have the Warscrolls, so they can still be used. As for the background side of things... have a little patience. No one in their right mind, least of all GW (who are quite good at this sort of thing), is going to lay out the entire background for us. Ever, actually.
* And we don't really want them to - this is one of the components that makes their background compelling *
I think the problem is that most people aren't literally complaining that there is zero tactics and we all might as well play snakes and ladders,
Oh, I have seen a few who have said exactly that
jonolikespie wrote: All those examples you brought up there are really just screening and threat range, which are themselves rather basic.
Hmm... Would we say basic - or fundamental?
I am not claiming AoS is chess and that people could become Grand Masters, but if we decide that movement-based tactics are basic, that removes a lot of what made WHFB what it is.
jonolikespie wrote: there should be some way to play a fair game out of the box with only the rules provided from the actual manufacturer.
But there is - we played through the scenarios given in the starter set, which use all the models contained. And they not only seemed nicely balanced for us, they gave us the baseline we needed to start putting together our own forces.
jonolikespie wrote: Doesn't that just suggest that 99% of all players want a point system?
It could. But it could also mean that 99% are just used to them. It is a ballsy approach to go against that kind of expectation but, surely, it is good to have something go against the status quo from time to tinme (I do understand the counter 'yes, but not in my favourite game!' ).
But the game does in fact give the sudden death advantage to the 65 sigmarines over the 100 goblins doesn't it?
It does - if you play with nothing but the core 4 page rules which, beyond your first trial game, I would not recommend anyone does. The strength of AoS (for me!) lies in the Battleplans.
I am sure there are people inside GW really excited about the game but they are not jumping on the official podcast to talk fluff, their painters are not jumping on their own forum to give painting tips, and they are not getting on board with the convention circuit to chat to their fans.
I cannot argue that at all. To give an example, I invited a certain well-known staffer to an interview on my blog, something I did many, many moons ago on an old web site I used to run. He was up for it, but the idea got skotched by management.
So I am with you there!
jonolikespie wrote: You have to admit that from the outside they are a very cold, faceless kind of company compared to the likes of PP, CB, Mantic and the like.
True, but...
Running a tiny gaming company myself (which I really should be attending to instead of typing this!) I can understand that GW has to do things in a different way. I (and the other companies you mention) have the luxury of jumping onto forums and chatting directly to gamers and we only have ourselves to answer to if something goes wrong. GW is a very different beast with a 'proper' company structure and shareholders to answer to. As companies, we all play with live ammunition on the Internet, but GW's shells are somewhat heavier and the is a bigger explosion if they drop them, so I can understand why they err towards caution.
Wow, that was a weird analogy, no idea where that came from!
Jack Flask wrote: No other board has a contigent of the same people who admit to not liking the game, and have no intention to ever like the game, constantly filling their threads with a constant stream of the same opinions stated like facts.
Actually, if you go to the 40k rumours threads, you will find a lot of people who seem to hate GW, hate the game, but feel forced to buy their products and use them
It is very strange...
TheCustomLime wrote: Maybe I'm wrong about the OP and he does recognize that AoS has problems but he just doesn't think that these are necessarily issues.
Oh, that is a good point to raise...
Let me see if I can explain my position on this.
I can understand that AoS has caused some problems with other people - I have seen that in my own gaming group. I can understand that some were annoyed about how their old game is gone (it is a tough thing, but that is probably spilt milk now), and I can understand how people can't or simply don't want to get to grips with a point-absent system.
However.
It works for me (and enough of my gaming group for it to work). And that is all I need to play it and chat about it on a forum.
But, being a professional game designer, I do find it difficult not to take the next step - in short, I believe that if I could get you down here to play a few games, I could have at least a 50% chance of changing your mind Doing that over the Internet is more difficult, but talking about games is almost as good as playing them, so why not explore that route?
Put another way, you list all your issues with AoS, and I can respect and understand all of them. But if you like Warhammer and GW games as a whole (and I make the presumption that this applies to everyone who posts on these forums - otherwise it is just plain weird), then I also believe there is at least something in AoS that you can enjoy. And if you enjoy it, and I enjoy it, we can chat about it - and everyone wins!
As for the contrarian thing, I am honestly not too fussed about that. I just get irritated when people get downright rude over a game.
(not you incidentally, but I am sure you have seen one or two others who have stepped over the line).
Wasn't there a running theme in the Gotrek books that he was somehow corrupted/charmed by his axe that was making him largely invincible? Surely out of all of the realms of man/dwarf, he'd be the least likely to be killed off? They live to hundreds of years old and he can quickly heal the most serious of wounds and take on any foe? I don't get how it makes sense to have killed him off. Felix? Aye, he'd have died of old age at some point, but Gotrek?
Many, many moons ago, I was drafted in to help write background text for the Third War of Armageddon. I remember chatting with Andy Chambers (in Bugman's Bar!) about the coming events, and I mentioned that if they wanted to make Armageddon truly epic, there had to be a great emotional cost - a well known character would have to meet his end in the war.
The result of that conversation was the death of Captain Tycho,.
Anyway, I am just saying that if it had been down to me, and I had to pick just one character to die in the End Times, it would have been Gotrek
True, but there's a huge amount of anecdotal evidence about it not doing well, and almost none about it doing well. Can we assume for now it's not doing that well until we discover otherwise?
Actually, I am going to say no
Anecdotal evidence is just not good enough for a matter of this import!
It is just stupid to stack models on top of one another Yes it is. But it does not happen in Age of Sigmar.
The rules imply it does?
We can certainly sort this one out.
The rules are available online - would you do me a favour and cut/paste the relevant section of the rules sheet that you feel indicates this?
I am not calling you out or anything, but I feel this has very much been a misconception (ha, on topic!) of the game. I have a feeling it was an assumption made by someone somewhere on a forum, and it has been blown up into 'fact'. And I really do not think it is true...
Yup, and ranges are measured figure to figure, so the only way various combats work is to either overlap bases, or to pretend they are closer than they are.
I have yet to come across a fight like that.
I have to ask though, have you? Or, and again I really don't want to appear like I am calling you out, have you just accepted what other people have said on this? I ask, because that was kinda the point of my original post.
The *point* of Minecraft is to make things, and the Mario Maker lets you create new levels for a platform game to enhance it. With AoS, a lot of the effort is completely unrelated to the core point of the game - to play the game. Some people like writing rules/scenarios, but why would they choose to do it with AoS over literally any other tabletop game?
You know, I was going to raise Minecraft and Sim City earlier as examples
Suppose, just for a moment, that playing is not the core point of the game, just the end result. After all, we all put time in building and painting models before we play. We spend hours on forums discussing them. We spend time building army lists (for some games, anyway ). Suppose the idea of AoS is that this is all extended into creating (and I cannot believe I am about to use this word) a narrative for your games?
This is very familiar territory to anyone who plays RPGs.
But AoS is not an RPG, you say. Well, no. But suppose it is meant to bring that kind of creative element to miniatures games. Just suppose.
What I am saying is that AoS is clearly a departure from previous Warhammer games (except, actually, the first editions, thinking about it - in that respect it may be the 'truest' Warhammer in decades). Old assumptions might not necessarily apply...
It could be written much better (in terms of clarity) without changing anything. And it could have been written much better without changing the feel of things.
Where is it not clear? This is one of the major plus points of the rules for me. Playing AoS, I have not once come across an argument, rules debate, or interpretation issue. Not once, and I cannot say that for 40k, and certainly not for WHFB.
I have seen others have issues but, in every case bar none, the issue has been down to either a) carrying across assumptions from other games or b) choosing not to believe what has been actually written (summoning rules are an excellent example of that).
However, in terms of basic, core rules, I would officially classify them as 'Solid'.
* That does not mean everyone will think them good - I understand why people may have issues with, say, shooting in close combat - but there is no argument about how that works *
Considering how the 40k team "designs" the game, I am actually amazed their game systems haven't collapsed already.
Now, you see, this is difficult to accept as an idea.
40k is the most widely played miniatures game in the world, by far, and has been for many, many years. Two strangers can meet up, pull out armies and begin playing immediately. Do you really think that happens just by accident, over all those Codexes and all those units?
* And yes, I realise at least one person is just itching to come back at me and say 'but you can't do that with AoS, eh?' I would argue that if you come down to my place, we could do exactly that, but I don't think AoS was meant to replace 40k in that way at all - I do think it is something different (which is why I like both AoS and 40k, and have no compulsion to pick one over the other!) *
Ive given AOS a fair chance, ive played a fair few games and I really dislike it.
1: it is very tactically shallow, and while the op is correct to a point, it does feel like im just pushing models forward and rolling some dice, no arcs, no facings, movement is redundant to a point, not a fan of that.
2: it simply is not the game I want to play, and that's fine, its not warhammer, and that's fine too, but I liked warhammer, I liked how complex it was, so I will continue to play 6th or 8th.
3: its too expensive still, the only real reason that warhammer has failed is that GW kept pushing for larger and larger armies and jacking the price, the buy in to fantasy was huge, this is the only reason it sunk, people were not buying it in the end. AOS is quite likely to go the same way.
40k is the most widely played miniatures game in the world, by far, and has been for many, many years. Two strangers can meet up, pull out armies and begin playing immediately. Do you really think that happens just by accident, over all those Codexes and all those units?
* And yes, I realise at least one person is just itching to come back at me and say 'but you can't do that with AoS, eh?' I would argue that if you come down to my place, we could do exactly that, but I don't think AoS was meant to replace 40k in that way at all - I do think it is something different (which is why I like both AoS and 40k, and have no compulsion to pick one over the other!) *
The success of 40k can be derived from far more than its rules system. Sure it's an acceptable system (I won't call it acceptable after 5th when it started going downhill in my opinion) but 40k has a lot more going on for it than AoS.
As for the "pick up" game; - you can do the exact same with WHFB, for instance (I always have my 40k and WHFB army cases in my trunk, just in case ). And we all know WHFB went down the fething toilet.
And I am not saying that AoS is going to substitute 40k, I am just saying that I am amazed that all the gaming systems made with such an inherently flawed design philosophy haven't imploded yet... But then again,.. 40k IS the only system left...
Its like going to a biology conference only to have some guy show up in the back, banging pots and yelling "feth evolution it offends my religion", who then cites freedom of speech as justification for being a massive gakker. It pisses off everyone their to engage in something they're interested in, and it makes the other side of the conversation look bad.
It's more like Boo Ben Konop. Pro-AoS posters are just trying to have a conversation and discuss something they honestly enjoy and EVERY THREAD becomes "Boo. Boo Age of Sigmar."
"Here's a lot of things that I like and enjoy about..."
"Boo. Boo Age of Sigmar"
"But I really do like it and I think..."
"Boo. Boo Age of Sigmar"
"That's unfair. I really would..."
"Boo. Boo Age of Sigmar. Boo."
"Are you done?"
"..."
"Okay, let's talk about..."
"Boo. Boo Age of Sigmar."
I found it exhausting and left for a while because it got tiring having to defend EVERY. SINGLE. COMMENT. It doesn't matter if it was something like "Age of Sigmar is a game". Then it's like "No it isn't." This place is basically the dead parrot sketch, except we're the customers trying to explain that the parrot isn't dead. "Yes it is."
At this point, I realize that nobody is going to be convinced of anything, and I'd just be happy to sit and discuss the game with like minded people with being interrup... "Boo. Boo Age of Sigmar. Boo."
If everyone who said "it could be better" sat down and designed AoS it would have basically nothing that makes the game what it is.
That's exactly it. It isn't that Age of Simar is flawed, it's that what it is, some people don't like. I think it is a novel approach to playin... "Boo. Boo Age of Sigmar."
All my favourite characters are gone! Just about all Chaos characters are still present.
So one of sixteen? different factions has their characters present? And all my old models are now totally out of scale? (GW seems to be making all the AoS and newer 40k stuff scaled up to 32mm or higher to prevent the sale of aftermarket pieces or alternative models).
Age of Sigmar is failing No one (except a few at GWHQ) knows anything about how the game has been selling. One store, or even a bunch of Internet forums, do not a firm basis make for this conclusion. The first clue we will get will be next year in GW’s financial reports, and we may not really know for 2-3 years.
It really is okay to wait and reserve judgement for later. There is no requirement to make a decision on this immediately!
Well, except that there are dozens of other games out there that are doing really well right now, and gamers are very much "now" people, and all they see are dusty AoS boxes on shelves. More failure now means more failure in the future as the thing never sells. Most people are becoming invested in other games and even if AoS becomes something near a game in a few years it won't help. Too little, too late.
I'd love to hear your opinion on other games out there that are doing really well that are objectively better games - Kings of War, SAGA, WMH, Bolt Action, etc that have a lot more going for them. Why wait for Age of Sigmar to become a real game with more than two factions when you have so many other options?
And regarding people not buying Fantasy, or the perception of that - after 8th Edition fantasy released, GW put out two army books in 18 months. That decided lack of support and lack of understanding that the game was priced too high, yet releasing more and more expensive models and repacks made the game not profitable enough. Yet even the Fantasy End Times books sold out quickly, while AOS books have been pulled from the site for not selling, lol.
There is no balance in Age of Sigmar There is, but it is in your hands.
Even if we leave the ‘dick issue’ to one side (basically, don’t be one, and have as much consideration for your opponent’s fun as your own), there are now a handful of points systems available for AoS, and they are all community-made. As time goes on, they will become more accurate and more balanced. They are there and available for your use right now.
It is no secret that you don’t have to go far on a gaming forum to see people complaining about points imbalances in Fantasy Battle or 40k, and in these rants someone always bemoans the fact that GW does not engage in community-led pointing for units. After all, if thousands of people are submitting results, and points costs are updated, they will be far more accurate, right?
Well, that is what you have, right now, for Age of Sigmar. What is more, if you do not agree with one system (a certain points value for a unit will not be agreeable for everyone, you can be sure of that), then there are already others to try.
If competitive gaming is your thing, tournament organisers are now free to pick the points systems they feel work for them best – or simply come up with their own…
Given time, what can be more balanced than that?
Why does a company with 'Games' in the title of it make their customer write games? Why is it so easy for dozens of other companies to write games with point values? Judge Dredd (amazing book, btw. Haven't had a chance to play yet) has 'points values' does it not?
By taking the points out of Age of Sigmar (and by the way they present scenarios), there is no ‘standard’ way of playing. You are being forced out of the comfort zone, and this is where the designers want you. They want you to experience Warhammer in a variety of formats that will keep you gaming for, well, forever.
Are you sure they're not just being lazy, skimping on $$ for rules (what, two guys salaries per year?) and FAQs and erratas so they can spend 1.7 million dollars on the FW website? lol
Games Workshop does not care about gamers Games Workshop is a company. It is incapable of caring about anything.
However, having spent some time with some of the design studio at GWHQ in the past, I can tell you that there are individuals there who very much do care about gamers. They are extremely enthusiastic about games (and yes, they play games other than those produced by GW!), and they see their job as communicating that enthusiasm to you, the gamer.
This is a huge cop-out. They've cared about gamers in the past. Look at any white dwarf pre-~2008 and you'll see that. Check this out when you have a chance - http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/10/warhammer-40000-open-day-in-detail.html - an easy way to tell that they just don't care about anything but $$$ for their investors (like their former CEO). "The hobby" is purchasing Citadel miniatures, not painting and playing.
Not to mention that most any other game company out there cares intensely about their customer. Privateer Press, Warlord Games, Mantic, Battlefront, Hawk, Spartan, all these people have Facebook pages, interact with their customers, genuinely provide value, and don't just see the people purchasing their stuff as a walking wallet. GW has gone astray and desperately needs to be purchased by a better company to get it back to what it used to be.
It is just stupid to stack models on top of one another Yes it is. But it does not happen in Age of Sigmar.
The rules imply it does?
Bases are ignored for the purposes of measuring ranges. That is all.
Yup, and ranges are measured figure to figure, so the only way various combats work is to either overlap bases, or to pretend they are closer than they are.
The rules imply no such thing. This is a case of taking an extreme edge case and presenting it as more common than it actually happens. Most of the models, and especially the newer AoS-specific ones, do not have problems with this, and in the extreme edge cases, we always have common sense and The Most Important Rule to settle disputes. For instance, I would have no problem at all measuring from the bases for melee ranges (1/2") - I think most of the time, it's pretty darn obvious which units are in melee and which ones aren't. And the threat bubble of 3" around each model - since you can't move into that bubble except to charge into melee, and they can't move into yours, it should be obvious which units are within the bubble and which ones aren't just based on their last movement.
The *point* of Minecraft is to make things, and the Mario Maker lets you create new levels for a platform game to enhance it. With AoS, a lot of the effort is completely unrelated to the core point of the game - to play the game. Some people like writing rules/scenarios, but why would they choose to do it with AoS over literally any other tabletop game?
I think the point of AoS IS to make things. AoS is the most modular game system I've seen in a long time, with very few restrictions on what can be used where and how. Off the top of my head, you've got:
The 4 Page Rules
Scenarios
Warscrolls (many of which have multiple variants)
Battalion Scrolls
Scenery Warscrolls
Battlefield Time of War Rules
And with few exceptions, you can mix and match ANY of those together. You can take most of the Scenarios and use them with most of the terrain scenery, with whatever army and make up you want. It is BEGGING for the players to create unique combinations to create the gaming experiences that appeals to them. Play in the Realm of Azyr with an Stormcast army using the Devastation Brotherhood battalion, fighting through a battlefield filled with giant skull towers and ruins that come alive and eat people. I love the modular aspect of the game, which makes creating new scenarios easier and more creative. Every new release creates more options. Each new book has new (optional) rules and battalions. Each new scenery adds new rules. Each new unit or faction adds new rules. The options grow, but unlike something like Warmachine which has very specific builds and counter-builds, you actually have more possibilities, not less.
But that's just my opinion. I like that aspect, a lot, and... "Boo. Boo Age of Sigmar. Boo."
I am just saying that I am amazed that all the gaming systems made with such an inherently flawed design philosophy haven't imploded yet...
Do you think it possible that the reason this has not happened yet is because your assumption is, umm, wrong?
As I said before I think 40k has a lot more going for it than just the rules system, and that is no doubt what helps keeping it afloat.
But I think a lot of your excuses/dismissals in your pretty little cardboard defense of AoS are wrong so... let's keep it at that, heh? I'm wrong because you say I'm wrong.
Bottle wrote: I'm a little lost. What is the inherent design flaw of 40k and why is it the only one left?
Emphasis on this little bit of the Citadel Design Seminar::
"We start when a new model is presented to Design Team, and we’re told to come up with some rules and background for it”. This sounds exaggerated, like someone from the miniatures side of the building produces a KV128 Stormsurge (built and painted to ‘Eavy Metal standard) and says “We made this, make rules and background so we can sell it!” – but this is literally the example we were given! I know!"
mugginns wrote: I saw this, and while it is a valiant attempt at defending a company, it does fall short on most points.
Do tell, Sir!
mugginns wrote: So one of sixteen? different factions has their characters present?
We already know it is more than this - as I said earlier, Tyrion and Teclis still look to be a thing. Some will disappear, some will pop back up - we can wait, surely, especially as we have the Warscrolls to use them.
And all my old models are now totally out of scale? (GW seems to be making all the AoS and newer 40k stuff scaled up to 32mm or higher to prevent the sale of aftermarket pieces or alternative models).
This debate popped up in my own gaming group.
The Dryads and Plague Monks got re-released and are still the same size, suggesting that maybe the scale creep is not happening. The Stormcasts, as we all know, are supposed to be big, honking guys. Same with the Blood Warriors, Given all that, I would be surprised if things like Bloodletters and Plaguebearers were redesigned any time soon, so we might assume they are staying the same.
The point of contention, I think, would be the Bloodreavers. Are they normal guys suffering from scale creep? Or have they been pumped up by the power of Khorne?
I am not really convinced either way as there is no good evidence for scale creep or not, but I am leaning slightly towards not, primarily because of the Dryads and Plague Monks.
As mentioned before, it really is okay not to make a firm judgement until we know more
* Another argument for not is that scale has not changed in 40k in recent releases, and I don't think they would run two different scales (LotR was a separate thing) *
Well, except that there are dozens of other games out there that are doing really well right now, and gamers are very much "now" people, and all they see are dusty AoS boxes on shelves. More failure now means more failure in the future as the thing never sells. Most people are becoming invested in other games and even if AoS becomes something near a game in a few years it won't help. Too little, too late.
We only see part of the picture. For example, you see dusty boxes on shelves and conclude failure. On the other hand, for the past couple of years our own GW sales (a little sideline we have) saw a Fantasy sale once in a blue moon over the past couple of years. Since AoS was released, we have seen them increase by two orders of magnitude and cannot keep the starter set on the shelves, nor the terrain. Sales of the separate Stormcast sets have been brisk, and both the Sylvaneth and Pestilens boxes disappeared quickly (actually, in the interests of honesty, we still have a Plague Furnace on the shelf).
Speaking as someone in the 'trade' (as opposed to simple retailer), I would be faintly surprised if the AoS starter's sales have eclipsed the sales of all those other games that you say are doing really well. Just my opinion, but a semi-informed one.
I'd love to hear your opinion on other games out there that are doing really well that are objectively better games - Kings of War, SAGA, WMH, Bolt Action, etc that have a lot more going for them. Why wait for Age of Sigmar to become a real game with more than two factions when you have so many other options?
Ack. Okay, I am going to break one of my own rules here and discuss the games of other companies (GW games do not count for this rule because they are too large and really don't care what I say ). However, I want everyone to understand that this is just my opinion as a gamer, and nothing else.
Kings of War: When I first saw this game, I thought it was the answer to everything, and I actually told Ronnie that if I were to design a fantasy mass-battle game, I would have come up with exactly the same movement system. However, it did not survive playing. We played it a few times, but hit an issue with armies that did not possess missile weapons (two armies advance towards each other and stop, because neither wants to get into charge range of the other and hand a big advantage over). I also feel, in terms of background, KOW lacks... heart. This may well change over time - after all, the Old World and Imperium were not built in a day - but it is an issue right now. The same applies to most of their minis - though I happily collected a Vampire Counts and Orc army composed mostly of Mantic rank and file. Their zombies are a very good deal.
SAGA: Looked at this but, to be honest, I found their dice system a bit 'gimmicky'. No reflection on the game, this is a personal thing on my part - I hate counters and special dice.
WMH: Never played it, I have to say I collected a little force a while ago (I want to say Khador, is that right? The red guys...), but the background just never appealed to me. I also have a little problem with the whole idea of 'play like you have a pair' but, again, that is my issue and not a reflection on the game.
Bolt Action: Love it. I have nearly a whole regiment of Soviets painted up, though they desperately need some transports (one cannot ride on tanks alone!) and one can always use more artillery. Big thumbs up.
Why does a company with 'Games' in the title of it make their customer write games? Why is it so easy for dozens of other companies to write games with point values? Judge Dredd (amazing book, btw. Haven't had a chance to play yet) has 'points values' does it not?
Ah, using my own game against me. Smart
Here's the thing: The first draft of that new edition of Dredd looked a lot like AoS. In fact, my main model for it was 1st edition 40k, and I went heavy on the idea of creating whatever games you liked with the system. Sound familiar?
I backtracked because all my playtesters told me it needed to be points-based with a solid campaign system.
With that in mind, you could say that GW just had the balls to do what I chickened out of In my defence though, we are a small company and do not have 40k to fall back on if a new game falls flat on its face.
Are you sure they're not just being lazy, skimping on $$ for rules (what, two guys salaries per year?) and FAQs and erratas so they can spend 1.7 million dollars on the FW website? lol
I can't defend web site spending (though I paid enough for ours, borders on criminal, I tell you). However, given the amount of redundancies that have taken place at GW (and knowing some of the past Studio Managers), I am not sure laziness is believable...
This is a huge cop-out. They've cared about gamers in the past. Look at any white dwarf pre-~2008 and you'll see that. Check this out when you have a chance - http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/10/warhammer-40000-open-day-in-detail.html - an easy way to tell that they just don't care about anything but $$$ for their investors (like their former CEO). "The hobby" is purchasing Citadel miniatures, not painting and playing.
Again, I cannot really defend, or even speak to, the Games Days - there certainly seems to be something 'else' happening there. In this department, I can only speak about members of the design team, past and present, whom I have known personally. |nything else would be anecdotal, and we don't like doing that
mugginns wrote: Not to mention that most any other game company out there cares intensely about their customer. Privateer Press, Warlord Games, Mantic, Battlefront, Hawk, Spartan, all these people have Facebook pages, interact with their customers, genuinely provide value, and don't just see the people purchasing their stuff as a walking wallet. GW has gone astray and desperately needs to be purchased by a better company to get it back to what it used to be.
That is how they survive. It is how my company survives (right now we have a major playtest going on that we have engaged the community in). However, I can see that this kind of attention might not scale up to a company the size of GW.
In which case, we all have a choice. We can enjoy the (absolutely superb) models GW do, and engage in universes we have 'lived' in for decades in some cases, or we can enjoy the games of companies that have a more human face.
Or we can do both.
* Not saying GW cannot or should not be more human in its approach, only saying I can understand why it is more difficult for them *
MongooseMatt wrote: We already know it is more than this - as I said earlier, Tyrion and Teclis still look to be a thing. Some will disappear, some will pop back up - we can wait, surely, especially as we have the Warscrolls to use them.
I mean, there are definitely people who can wait, but I'm not going to slog through five different $80 hardbacks or whatever to get there. I already did that with End Times.
This debate popped up in my own gaming group.
The Dryads and Plague Monks got re-released and are still the same size, suggesting that maybe the scale creep is not happening. The Stormcasts, as we all know, are supposed to be big, honking guys. Same with the Blood Warriors, Given all that, I would be surprised if things like Bloodletters and Plaguebearers were redesigned any time soon, so we might assume they are staying the same.
The point of contention, I think, would be the Bloodreavers. Are they normal guys suffering from scale creep? Or have they been pumped up by the power of Khorne?
I am not really convinced either way as there is no good evidence for scale creep or not, but I am leaning slightly towards not, primarily because of the Dryads and Plague Monks.
As mentioned before, it really is okay not to make a firm judgement until we know more
* Another argument for not is that scale has not changed in 40k in recent releases, and I don't think they would run two different scales (LotR was a separate thing) *
I would say the re-release was just to capitalize on their old models still being in a box in a warehouse in Nottingham or China. Any future releases for AoS are gonna be HUGE GUYS like the Sigmarines or the bloodguys. The bloodguys definitely are a lot larger.
Re: 40k - not so much the 'ground scale' in so much as the 'model scale'. Every army is now getting huge $150 kits and multiple $75 kits. It becomes increasingly harder to find alternative models or parts for these selections. They've f'd around with the base size for half the line of models. The new Ghostkeel thing is on its own base size.
We only see part of the picture. For example, you see dusty boxes on shelves and conclude failure. On the other hand, for the past couple of years our own GW sales (a little sideline we have) saw a Fantasy sale once in a blue moon over the past couple of years. Since AoS was released, we have seen them increase by two orders of magnitude and cannot keep the starter set on the shelves, nor the terrain. Sales of the separate Stormcast sets have been brisk, and both the Sylvaneth and Pestilens boxes disappeared quickly (actually, in the interests of honesty, we still have a Plague Furnace on the shelf).
Speaking as someone in the 'trade' (as opposed to simple retailer), I would be faintly surprised if the AoS starter's sales have eclipsed the sales of all those other games that you say are doing really well. Just my opinion, but a semi-informed one.
GW really is that large.
The KoW kickstarter did amazing and the Warpath kickstarter did a half a million dollars. The AoS starter would have to sell over 4,000 kits to get to a half a million dollars. I wonder if it even did 2,000 And you didn't address the lack of support from GW for Fantasy - two army books in eighteen months after launching eighth edition.
Ack. Okay, I am going to break one of my own rules here and discuss the games of other companies (GW games do not count for this rule because they are too large and really don't care what I say ). However, I want everyone to understand that this is just my opinion as a gamer, and nothing else.
Kings of War: When I first saw this game, I thought it was the answer to everything, and I actually told Ronnie that if I were to design a fantasy mass-battle game, I would have come up with exactly the same movement system. However, it did not survive playing. We played it a few times, but hit an issue with armies that did not possess missile weapons (two armies advance towards each other and stop, because neither wants to get into charge range of the other and hand a big advantage over). I also feel, in terms of background, KOW lacks... heart. This may well change over time - after all, the Old World and Imperium were not built in a day - but it is an issue right now. The same applies to most of their minis - though I happily collected a Vampire Counts and Orc army composed mostly of Mantic rank and file. Their zombies are a very good deal.
SAGA: Looked at this but, to be honest, I found their dice system a bit 'gimmicky'. No reflection on the game, this is a personal thing on my part - I hate counters and special dice.
WMH: Never played it, I have to say I collected a little force a while ago (I want to say Khador, is that right? The red guys...), but the background just never appealed to me. I also have a little problem with the whole idea of 'play like you have a pair' but, again, that is my issue and not a reflection on the game.
Bolt Action: Love it. I have nearly a whole regiment of Soviets painted up, though they desperately need some transports (one cannot ride on tanks alone!) and one can always use more artillery. Big thumbs up.
I'm glad to see you providing opinion - but don't you think saying Mantica lacks heart... i mean, does anyone actually really know what AoS is even about? Some dudes fighting in heaven until they die and then being reborn? I'd definitely recommend SAGA - it is a sword and shield game (like AOS) that actually does require a ton of strategy in movement, fatigue, and the battle board. 'Play like you have a pair' is definitely overblown on the webs.
Again, I cannot really defend, or even speak to, the Games Days - there certainly seems to be something 'else' happening there. In this department, I can only speak about members of the design team, past and present, whom I have known personally. |nything else would be anecdotal, and we don't like doing that
That is how they survive. It is how my company survives (right now we have a major playtest going on that we have engaged the community in). However, I can see that this kind of attention might not scale up to a company the size of GW.
In which case, we all have a choice. We can enjoy the (absolutely superb) models GW do, and engage in universes we have 'lived' in for decades in some cases, or we can enjoy the games of companies that have a more human face.
Or we can do both.
* Not saying GW cannot or should not be more human in its approach, only saying I can understand why it is more difficult for them *
I mean, that kind of attention could absolutely scale up to a company the size of GW. They're a niche hobby company, not the IRS. Their lunch is getting eaten by dozens of other companies day in and day out and these other companies are fighting for that market share while GW is trying to tell people what they want. They truly believe that people buy their models to buy their models, not to play games.
Kings of War: When I first saw this game, I thought it was the answer to everything, and I actually told Ronnie that if I were to design a fantasy mass-battle game, I would have come up with exactly the same movement system. However, it did not survive playing. We played it a few times, but hit an issue with armies that did not possess missile weapons (two armies advance towards each other and stop, because neither wants to get into charge range of the other and hand a big advantage over). I also feel, in terms of background, KOW lacks... heart. This may well change over time - after all, the Old World and Imperium were not built in a day - but it is an issue right now. The same applies to most of their minis - though I happily collected a Vampire Counts and Orc army composed mostly of Mantic rank and file. Their zombies are a very good deal.
that is my problem with Kings of War as well. It takes everything I hated about 6th and 7th warhammer, and promotes them. The armies that run forward and stop so they don't get into the others' charge range is what I call the 1/8" dance - and ruins immersion for me.
As to the rest of your post - thank you for your insight, its always good to read what other game developers think and how they do.
The Age of Sigmar point-less construct is indeed a giant gamble on GW's part because modern gaming dictates you must have points values or you will largely be shunned by the vocal part of the community.
GW is our first litmus test into if the vocal part of the community is really representative of the majority.
i mean, does anyone actually really know what AoS is even about?
Having read three of the novels now and processing the archaon short stories, what AOS is narratively is becoming more clear to me.
Re: 40k - not so much the 'ground scale' in so much as the 'model scale'. Every army is now getting huge $150 kits and multiple $75 kits. It becomes increasingly harder to find alternative models or parts for these selections. They've f'd around with the base size for half the line of models. The new Ghostkeel thing is on its own base size.
This is a good point - have the new Fire Warriors gone up in size? If they haven't, I would suggest this means that the basic human (alien) is not suffering from scale creep.
But yes, I would expect more of the big models too.
The KoW kickstarter did amazing and the Warpath kickstarter did a half a million dollars. The AoS starter would have to sell over 4,000 kits to get to a half a million dollars. I wonder if it even did 2,000 And you didn't address the lack of support from GW for Fantasy - two army books in eighteen months after launching eighth edition.
Well, our own Paranoia KS got into that sort of territory, but I wouldn't delude myself in thinking that we have any kind of decent fraction of the player-base that GW has
As for 4,000 units - that is piddly numbers for GW on this sort of product. I have a feeling we would be looking at decent five figure unit numbers for the starter set already, and I would not be surprised to hear in a couple of years that they are well into six figures
Put another way, I can shift 2,000 copies of something, and I don't have the Warhammer brand behind me
I'm glad to see you providing opinion - but don't you think saying Mantica lacks heart... i mean, does anyone actually really know what AoS is even about?
Well, on a macro level, I think we do - it is Warhammer, which comes with a great deal of weight and expectation behind it (yes, I know we can argue about whether it is actually Warhammer ). For example, they release a Khorne Bloodbound book - I have reasonable expectations as to what I will find in it. If we talk about Slaanesh or Tzeentch or Orcs (Orruks), we basically know what we are going to get.
KOW does not really have that kind of pull yet for me.
MongooseMatt wrote: Well, on a macro level, I think we do - it is Warhammer, which comes with a great deal of weight and expectation behind it (yes, I know we can argue about whether it is actually Warhammer ). For example, they release a Khorne Bloodbound book - I have reasonable expectations as to what I will find in it. If we talk about Slaanesh or Tzeentch or Orcs (Orruks), we basically know what we are going to get.
KOW does not really have that kind of pull yet for me.
I guess the point is that it isn't Warhammer, and it has no weight behind it. From your example, Slaanesh isn't even around anymore. And we don't know if anybody else is, either, because all we've seen are bloodguys and Sigmarines with a lot of really abstract lore about heavens and fighting and gods and 'realms'.
Who knows? They might be right. You and I only see our little corner of the universe.
I honestly don't know what the answer to that is. The trouble is, no one here does.
Would you try to sell Judge Dredd models without a good game behind it? Even with the pretty great background and lots of interest from reading comics, movies, etc. I doubt I would try to do that. And we're told that they do no market research, so they end up at places like this. I think we can likely give ourselves a little more of a nod than 'who knows?'. Does GWreally deserve the benefit of the doubt here?
The fiction that GW has produced up to this point for AoS goes well beyond bloodguys and Sigmarines.
There is the short story collection on Archaon and collecting his champions, and a lot of focus has been given to Nurgle, Tzeentch, and some on the skaven.
The Sylvaneth feature in the novels as well, heading into Ghar Maraz where the wood elves become more prominent. I don't even know what the 5th novel holds but the fiction definitely has started getting into the other races.
The duradin as well - the stormcast are searching for them as allies.
Emphasis on this little bit of the Citadel Design Seminar::
"We start when a new model is presented to Design Team, and we’re told to come up with some rules and background for it”. This sounds exaggerated, like someone from the miniatures side of the building produces a KV128 Stormsurge (built and painted to ‘Eavy Metal standard) and says “We made this, make rules and background so we can sell it!” – but this is literally the example we were given! I know!"
Fethin' top notch rule design process, ain't it?
I genuinely don't see this as a bad thing, in fact I would have thought it obvious.
GW are quite open about being a miniatures company. Therefore the miniatures need are the driving force behind things. For any company concerned with the 'feel' of it's miniatures, then aesthetics would logically have to come first - afaik, Jon Blanche is still the guy charged with this overall?
For example, in certain circumstances that works seamlessly. Take the new Firewarriors. Makes complete sense to have a slight evolution, so the kit has bigger armour and new guns to allow a dual build for a new type of unit.
GW have a dual kit that (at least in theory) is going to shift twice as many units relative to logistics. The fluff is an easy sell there, because it makes sense.
In the 40K universe, development and advancement - even within the Imperium - is kinda accepted. Orks build Gorkanauts, you can see that happening. Tau develop new tech - that's pretty much what they're known for, Tyranids evolve, as more Tomb Worlds are awakened new Necron units come online, etc. etc.
So that model works.
Now go back to WFB. It's a historic setting. Tech doesn't advance on any real kind of scale. There's nothing left to 'discover'. Stuff is pretty much as-is. There was no advancement in the timeline because the stage was so small.
Look at the last Dark Elf release. Add in Swordsmen to the traditional combo of Spears and Crossbows. Erm, okay, funny they've never really been mentioned before but it kinda makes sense... oh, and enormous sea beastie that's always been there. And warlocks on horses. And...
End Times.
Cue complaints from the fluff crowd. That Design-led process 'breaks'.
I'd actually suggest AoS was intentionally designed to gain maximum benefit from this approach. The world is essentially a blank canvas. We've got a few key players already, but the 8 realms have been crushed into submission for thousands of years, and we as the 'viewers' are following Sigmar as he rediscovers the place. With no army book cycle to worry about, the narrative elements are easy. Studio comes up with new Duardin wartrain? Cool, bring it in, we can have it as part of the Battle for the Hearthstone campaign we've got planned. Seraphon get a beast-master style pack of dog-sized Raptors to protect units? Nice. There's no continuity to break because the whole setting for AoS is one of discovery and advancement.
I have no idea how long GW have been using this miniatures-led process - I know it wasn't the case yeeeaarrrs ago. But if the quality of the miniature output for the last 5 or so years - across both 40K and WFB/AoS - is the result, then I'm all for it.
Emphasis on this little bit of the Citadel Design Seminar::
"We start when a new model is presented to Design Team, and we’re told to come up with some rules and background for it”. This sounds exaggerated, like someone from the miniatures side of the building produces a KV128 Stormsurge (built and painted to ‘Eavy Metal standard) and says “We made this, make rules and background so we can sell it!” – but this is literally the example we were given! I know!"
Fethin' top notch rule design process, ain't it?
I genuinely don't see this as a bad thing, in fact I would have thought it obvious.
GW are quite open about being a miniatures company. Therefore the miniatures need are the driving force behind things. For any company concerned with the 'feel' of it's miniatures, then aesthetics would logically have to come first - afaik, Jon Blanche is still the guy charged with this overall?
For example, in certain circumstances that works seamlessly. Take the new Firewarriors. Makes complete sense to have a slight evolution, so the kit has bigger armour and new guns to allow a dual build for a new type of unit.
GW have a dual kit that (at least in theory) is going to shift twice as many units relative to logistics. The fluff is an easy sell there, because it makes sense.
In the 40K universe, development and advancement - even within the Imperium - is kinda accepted. Orks build Gorkanauts, you can see that happening. Tau develop new tech - that's pretty much what they're known for, Tyranids evolve, as more Tomb Worlds are awakened new Necron units come online, etc. etc.
So that model works.
Now go back to WFB. It's a historic setting. Tech doesn't advance on any real kind of scale. There's nothing left to 'discover'. Stuff is pretty much as-is. There was no advancement in the timeline because the stage was so small.
Look at the last Dark Elf release. Add in Swordsmen to the traditional combo of Spears and Crossbows. Erm, okay, funny they've never really been mentioned before but it kinda makes sense... oh, and enormous sea beastie that's always been there. And warlocks on horses. And...
End Times.
Cue complaints from the fluff crowd. That Design-led process 'breaks'.
I'd actually suggest AoS was intentionally designed to gain maximum benefit from this approach. The world is essentially a blank canvas. We've got a few key players already, but the 8 realms have been crushed into submission for thousands of years, and we as the 'viewers' are following Sigmar as he rediscovers the place. With no army book cycle to worry about, the narrative elements are easy. Studio comes up with new Duardin wartrain? Cool, bring it in, we can have it as part of the Battle for the Hearthstone campaign we've got planned. Seraphon get a beast-master style pack of dog-sized Raptors to protect units? Nice. There's no continuity to break because the whole setting for AoS is one of discovery and advancement.
I have no idea how long GW have been using this miniatures-led process - I know it wasn't the case yeeeaarrrs ago. But if the quality of the miniature output for the last 5 or so years - across both 40K and WFB/AoS - is the result, then I'm all for it.
No doubt the miniatures have become better looking (and more expensive, and the price per model has doubled, and... I rant ) but if the price for that is AoS-like shoddy "rules", I am definitely not buying it, but that is personal opinion.
What good are awesome-looking miniatures if I don't want to play the game they are specifically made for?
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: What good are awesome-looking miniatures if I don't want to play the game they are specifically made for?
AoS has rules. Some people like them, some don't. AoS has miniatures. Some people like them, some don't. I would assume that Age of Sigmar, as a miniature ecosystem, is probably the overlapping section of people who both like the rules and like the miniatures. Therefore, if you are outside of that overlapping sections, or indeed outside of either or both of the circles, it is fair to assume that Age of Sigmar is not made for you.
The question then is, if your personal opinion is the problem here, what can you do about it?
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: What good are awesome-looking miniatures if I don't want to play the game they are specifically made for?
AoS has rules. Some people like them, some don't. AoS has miniatures. Some people like them, some don't. I would assume that Age of Sigmar, as a miniature ecosystem, is probably the overlapping section of people who both like the rules and like the miniatures. Therefore, if you are outside of that overlapping sections, or indeed outside of either or both of the circles, it is fair to assume that Age of Sigmar is not made for you.
The question then is, if your personal opinion is the problem here, what can you do about it?
I didn't say AoS doesn't have rules. I said they were shoddy - it's a whole different thing.
Also I can do what I am doing at the moment - not buy the AoS content. But, last I checked, there was nothing barring me from expressing my opinion while talking to RoperPG about the current citadel design process... or is there?
First up, in a response to the "elephant in the room" question about wanting massed rank and file battles, you said this.
"Here's the thing. You had it (8e) and you didn't support it.
I don't mean you personally (!), but there was not enough interest in WHFB to sustain its life (and the cracks were appearing long before 8e - this has been coming for a while). No one yet knows whether AoS is the answer, but something had to change. We can debate about whether AoS was the correct step, and I am sure there are people who will, but something had to be done.
At the end of the day, if people had been buying into WHFB at the same rate as they do 40k, it is entirely possible that AoS would never have appeared."
so here's three questions for you.
1. How much are players supposed to spend to continue playing a game? I'm genuinely curious, How much do you recommend that each individual player spend per year? I have heard this argument before so I really want to know your opinion as a games designer.
2. why is it the consumers fault that a product failed? if you put out a sourcebook, miniature, expansion, or DLC and it is not bought, well received, or a critical success, What do you as a games designer take from that particular endeavor?
3. Lastly, why would you go out of your way to support GW and AoS? You are a games designer in your own right so I'm not sure what benefit you get from clearing up misconceptions regarding AoS.
I wanted to answer my own questions, to let you know where i stand on everything as far as these points go.
1. I usually buy all resource books when they come out, and in the last year I've bought a 2000 point Kult of speed army, five of the new army carrying cases, 2500 points of guard, and 2000 points of imperial terrain. I support my local store so all that is from a GW store. I feel that for someone to play any given wargame they should buy what is needed for an "average" game along with the rules needed to play. assuming their models aren't phased out, keeping current with the rules for the game and their models should suffice.
2. It is not my fault as a consumer that a product fails, nor is it the consumer that can only afford a box set and paints in a years time. I'm pretty ignorant on business things, but I would think if I made a product and it didn't sell, I would look at WHY it wasn't selling, and adjust accordingly. Especially if my competition was capitalizing on my gaff! I think blaming the consumer only alienates the consumer.
3. I support GW because it's my current best option for my wargaming needs. I love my local GW store, there's a solid group of players, and wargaming with GW products has been a hobby of mine for quite a while. I have played a lot of AoS, my current plan for AoS is to wait and see how it evolves (assuming it doesn't get canceled) and focus on 40K. I am a scenario player but I still find AoS similar to eating spaghetti and meatballs without utensils. It gets the job done but its sloppy as hell.
+1 to Matt's topic and to RoperPG's post about AoS giving tons of options for new model options that weren't possible in the old world. (Besides, the old world's advancement would have either gone steampunk, stepping on warmahorde's territory, or high magic and gets complained that it's copying warcraft.)
@ Stormcrow, if you don't care for the rules the models are still nice or you can use them for parts. Lots of people didn't care for KoW in the past but still bought their models.
Heck, I bet several of the other miniature companies people buy from to use in GW games have their own games that people completely overlook.
1. How much are players supposed to spend to continue playing a game? I'm genuinely curious, How much do you recommend that each individual player spend per year? I have heard this argument before so I really want to know your opinion as a games designer.
I am not the one to answer this - first because I am not privy (unfortunately) the the scales that GW is used to, and second because my company has never really released any line that required a constant buy in beyond successive books, which is kinda down to us and our release schedule.
2. why is it the consumers fault that a product failed? if you put out a sourcebook, miniature, expansion, or DLC and it is not bought, well received, or a critical success, What do you as a games designer take from that particular endeavor?
Heh
I am not sure there is any actual blame - sometimes stuff just happens.
For example, I once wrote (what I still consider to be) a brilliant sourcebook for Starship Troopers (the Klendathu Invasion). It had a complete army list in it covering the guys from the film, the background tracked the entire history of the invasion, and we had managed to link film, book and animated TV series into a cohesive whole.
Guess what SST supplement sold the least?
You can say that if more people had bought WFB, it would not have gone away. However, the reasons for that not happening are up for discussion and (unfortunately) there is no solid evidence for any argument. All we know for certain is that it was not performing.
The natural reaction is to blame GW because, well, that is what people like to do Mind you, we should also bear in mind that product lines have finite life spans and WFB had a very, very good run. * Shrug * Maybe it was just its time.
3. Lastly, why would you go out of your way to support GW and AoS? You are a games designer in your own right so I'm not sure what benefit you get from clearing up misconceptions regarding AoS.
Someone else asked me something similar the other day on another forum
Ultimately, it is because I like AoS and I like the products GW produces. I didn't buy into Execution Force, but I tend to pick up most games they produce.
I run a games company because I like games, I enjoy writing them, I appear to be at least above average in doing it, and I never wanted a real job. I could be earning six figures by making, oh, widgets or something - but how interesting would that be?
I enjoy playing games, and I enjoy talking about playing games. I like conversing with other people who play games, even if they do not play the same games as me. And I am fortunate to be in a job that allows me to do that.
On the other hand, you want to talk about Judge Dredd, Traveller, or any of our other games, past or present, and I will be all over that!
Back to the OP. The OP incorrectly assumes that many don't like AOS because of misunderstandings.
I understand perfectly what it is and realize that it isn't for me.
I am not sure there is any actual blame - sometimes stuff just happens.
...
You can say that if more people had bought WFB, it would not have gone away. However, the reasons for that not happening are up for discussion and (unfortunately) there is no solid evidence for any argument. All we know for certain is that it was not performing.
The natural reaction is to blame GW because, well, that is what people like to do Mind you, we should also bear in mind that product lines have finite life spans and WFB had a very, very good run. * Shrug * Maybe it was just its time.
Releasing only two supplements to the rules in 18 months after a new edition, constantly raising prices to an untenable level, creating rules to benefit the player if they use more and more models... yet most of the time in the AOS defense threads the players get blamed for not buying enough.
Both Mario Maker and Minecraft are expressly about using your imagination to create new things. That is the point of those games.
You want to compare it properly, compare it to D&D 5e. Homebrew material is very common with D&D, and it works well because the developers actually published a finished, balanced, and good ruleset, not this sack of gak we all call Age of Sigmar.
ASIDE from that, the developers are fething paid to create a whole, complete game. They clearly can't be arsed to do so.
And wargames aren’t about using your imagination? You say compare it to RPGs – wargames and RPGs share a lot of players, and they both draw on, and share a lot of the same creative DNA in bringing things to life.
As to what developers are paid to do – they’re paid to adhere to a design brief. If that brief says ‘full, all encompassing, watertight tournament rules set’, then that’s what they’ll do. If that brief says ‘open ended book’, with an emphasis on putting the game in the hands of the players, then that’s what they’ll do. GW prefers the latter. Don’t like it. Then don’t play it. Vote with your feet and wallet. I sometimes get tired with all the criticism GW developers get. I really do. Outside of GW those same developers lambasted as ‘terrible’,’incompetent’ etc have gone on to create some brilliant rules sets. Its the corporate responsibilities and juggling priorities that puts a lid on them. You have so many other things to deal with - deadlines, limited resources and project briefs and all are somewhat necessary, especially for a company on the size of GW. Letting all that creativity and blue sky thinking off the hook wont necessarily lead to brilliant results either.
That is not my intention. If you have looked at Age of Sigmar and thought ‘urk, big armoured guys in fantasy, not for me!’ or something similar, that is just fine. Plenty of other games out there.
All my favourite characters are gone!
Just about all Chaos characters are still present. The Chaos Gods took their favourite servants and moved them to the Mortal Realms. Your Glottkin is still working hard for Nurgle (and doing a damn good job, as it happens, seriously kicking Alarielle’s rear end).
Obviously, Alarielle is still around, and she seems to be significantly more powerful. Tyrion and Teclis are still a thing.
Speaking from an artistic point of view, Gotrek had to die. Of all the characters from the world-that-was, he was the one who was always going to be killed…
We don’t yet know the full extent of who survived the End Times and while many have gone, there are still strong links to the Old World.
Manfred, for example, has just popped up...
I’ll be honest. I never cared for WFB. Never liked the lore, or the models. I love my Simon Scarrow books etc about a bunch of roman legionnaires, and while my history brain knows their empire crashed and burned 1500 years ago, I can still enjoy books about the roman empire. Here’s the thing. I know its gone. I never had to lose it in the first place. I can appreciate someone being gutted that a stable setting got nuked. I’d be just as annoyed if some of my favourite IPs got canned. Don’t dismiss that so readily.
Age of Sigmar is failing
No one (except a few at GWHQ) knows anything about how the game has been selling. One store, or even a bunch of Internet forums, do not a firm basis make for this conclusion. The first clue we will get will be next year in GW’s financial reports, and we may not really know for 2-3 years.
It really is okay to wait and reserve judgement for later. There is no requirement to make a decision on this immediately!
Agreed. Annecdotal evidence could suggest both. I think its got a lot of pull and value for those that want a simple, straight forward game, and especially for currently-not-wargamers for whom all the intricacies and all the moving parts of games like WMH and Infinity are not present (I love those intricacies; but I know for a fact those same intricacies that I love make other people run a mile). Whether AOS has the stamina to go the distance is another question – my jury is still out, but im quite interested in the outcome.
There are no tactics in Age of Sigmar – just dice rolling
You have not got to grips with the game. If you really believe there are no tactics present, you have made that judgement too quickly. I’ll give some brief examples
To be fair: Nothing I’ve not seen before, or implemented better in other games. For me, this and the not-very-interesting rules mechanics is the deciding factor in why I don’t actually play AOS, even though I love the DIY gaming approach that AOS encourages. Nothing new... Personal opinion though.
Shooting in close combat makes no sense
Sure it does. It is a different type of fighting to what you might be used to. I’ll give an example using 40k, as everyone will be familiar with that – feel free to substitute for Bloodreavers and Stormcasts.
A Dark Angels Tactical Squad charges the remnants of an Ork mob cowering behind a barricade, determined to shift them and claim this flank of the battle. One Tactical Marine leaps over the barricade, and kicks an Ork in the chest, leaving it flat on the floor. Stamping on its head with an armoured foot, he turns as another Ork rushes him with a massive cleaver. Raising his Bolter, he fires three rounds which tear through the alien’s chest. Giving praise to the Emperor, he continues firing as the rest of the Orks flee from the assault of the Dark Angels.
Can you see that happening in your head? It is a more cinematic approach to combat but, whether it is your cup of tea or not, it is one that works
Firing a longbow in the midst of a melee while a guy is hacking at you with a sword isn’t quite the same as pulling the trigger on an automatic weapon.
Now, if AOS actually had rules for (1)leaping over barricades, (2) kicking orks in the chest, (3)knocking them down, (4) stamping on their heads, and (5) reaction fire to charging enemy models (all of which is in Infinity FYI), we could talk. Right now though, we have rules where my dudes wound goblins as easily as dragons. Cheers, but it’s a bit silly, if you ask me.
There is no balance in Age of Sigmar
There is, but it is in your hands.
Even if we leave the ‘dick issue’ to one side (basically, don’t be one, and have as much consideration for your opponent’s fun as your own), there are now a handful of points systems available for AoS, and they are all community-made. As time goes on, they will become more accurate and more balanced. They are there and available for your use right now.
It is no secret that you don’t have to go far on a gaming forum to see people complaining about points imbalances in Fantasy Battle or 40k, and in these rants someone always bemoans the fact that GW does not engage in community-led pointing for units. After all, if thousands of people are submitting results, and points costs are updated, they will be far more accurate, right?
Well, that is what you have, right now, for Age of Sigmar. What is more, if you do not agree with one system (a certain points value for a unit will not be agreeable for everyone, you can be sure of that), then there are already others to try.
This risks fracturing the community though. It walks you down the road of every group supposedly playing AOS, but in reality theyre essentially playing different games. Its very hard to build beyond a local player group when things are like this; when you don’t have a defined and structured set of governing rules that define the game. Sport works like this.
If competitive gaming is your thing, tournament organisers are now free to pick the points systems they feel work for them best – or simply come up with their own…
I’ve made this point before, but the main strength of tournaments is as organised play. Everyone doing their own thing risks all sorts of problems. AOS is not a tournament game. And that’s OK. But really, tournaments require a different, more structured, organised, and most importantly, a standard, defined and universal approach.
But they could have added a points system, and all those ‘narrative’ gamers could have just ignored them – then everyone would have got what they wanted
This is true (leaving aside the benefits of community-pointing for a moment). However, there is another problem and, speaking as a games designer, this is a very real one.
If you put a points-based system in, 99% of all players will use it to the exclusion of all else. Yes, they could just ignore points. But they won’t. Gamers just won’t.
Some will. With one of my gaming groups, we happily ignore points in favour of interesting match ups and home brewed scenarios and missions. And what exactly is wrong with a point based game? Everything you talk about can be achieved even with points.
How a game presents itself has a direct effect on how it is played, generally speaking. And this, I know, was a very real issue for the guys at GW in the past. During the days of 3rd Edition 40k, to cite an example, the vast majority of games played used the Dawn Assault mission because, for some reason, people had got it into their heads that it was the ‘fairest’ mission. They also tended to default to 1,500 points.
The problem for the designers is that they have all these other types of battles, and worlds, and models to show you, but if you are just playing 1,500 point Dawn Assault games, you are not getting any of it. You are missing out on a massive amount.
If you are the games designer responsible, that is a big issue. You are creating all this wonderful material, and none of it is getting used. It also means the game is going to stagnate – at some point, you will get bored with Dawn Assault, but if you have been conditioned to think that this is the only way of playing 40k, you may not be looking for alternatives.
Then the presentation is poor.
Beyond that, It very well might be the ‘only way of playing 40k’. Let me explain. There is a reason for me saying that. To be honest, ‘how’ people play is a thing. For a lot of people, unfortunately they don’t have massive amounts of time to dedicate to gaming. the most accessible way of getting a few games in is to head to the shop, get a table for a few hours and default to a standard mission of a standard size. Pick Up and Play 101. For a lot of people, especially in the states. this is the only way they can afford to get involved and play. Hence a default.
All those clever missions people are ‘missing out on’ – well, yes they are. But they often take a huge amount of time, organisation and space to set up and enjoy. My mate has a garage with a 12” by 6” board and we get together most Fridays – we set up, and play out the game over two or three evenings. And its great fun. I presume you have the luxury of being able to play your wargames in a similar way. And I use the term ‘luxury’ deliberately. We can enjoy all those missions and get loads out of our hobby, but not everyone is in the same boat. Not everyone has the time, experience etc to negotiate and organise those epic encounters. I wish they were, and I encourage people to walk down this road, but its not always possible.
I would also argue that rather than dismissing how people play, and dismissing point-based games (which you do, and which I think is unfair – point based games have proved their worth)
I know this sounds ridiculous. But it is a very real thing, and it is very common.
There is a reality behind it too. As much as I believe the ‘lazy gamer’ wants to have a game presented to him on a plate, and wants 'lazy gamer design' instead of 'lazy game design', there is a reason why ‘default ways of play’ is a thing too.
By taking the points out of Age of Sigmar (and by the way they present scenarios), there is no ‘standard’ way of playing. You are being forced out of the comfort zone, and this is where the designers want you. They want you to experience Warhammer in a variety of formats that will keep you gaming for, well, forever.
Or you walk away. Which is the last thing you want for a new, untested game and what too many people are doing if you want this to be the success it could be.
Here’s the thing. This is akin to You being chucked into the wilderness, and expected to survive on your own wits and cunning. Which is all well and good. But, as you infer earlier, this is being done to people with no skill or knowledge of surviving in the wilds. Don’t be surprised if they starve…. If they’ve never played a game where they’ve been in the driving seat, how are you expecting them to suddenly embrace it, ‘get it’, play that way and love it? If you’re putting people out of their comfort zone, at least give them some tools to show them the way. With my wilderness example, at least a tent, torch, flints, map&compass and a ‘how to build traps and skin a rabbit for idiots’ guide.
surely a helpful way is to present this ‘creative way of playing’ is with positive and empowering scenario design tools, suggestions , ideas, and an encouraging narrative behind it? As opposed to forcing people 'out of their comfort zone'. Their response will be a rather justified gtfo.
“The game plays like there is no difference between a goblin and a super warrior Stormcast”
Another direct quote, and it is a little bit troubling that someone actually thinks this. Of course there is a difference – that goblin is going to get stomped by the Stormcast in a stand up fight. In fact, a unit of five Stormcasts is likely to trounce a veritable mob of goblins unless they are well supported.
there are silly things like a goblin wounding a stormcast as easily as he wounds a dragon.
So, if I have a model with a 12” base, no one can fight me, right?
Well, if you go down that road yes, sort of.
If you meet someone with a base like that, have a quick chat and sort it out. All it requires is the application of common sense. I am pretty sure this is why this is not in the rules sheet – the designers could not conceive of anyone seriously trying this loop hole and, to be frank, I agree with theM.
Which is all well and good, until someone says ‘no’. And it doesn’t have to be a 12” base. It can be game size, the scenario, the terrain layout or any number of variables. Neither player need be wrong either, How about 60 peasants versus 60 knights? Both are fully entitled to enjoy the game a certain way, right? But one has to compromise and play down, thereby implying he is in the wrong for taking what he’s taking. It can end up being a race to the bottom, if you ask me. There are not a limitless number of opponents to choose from.
They are not writing a set of rules designed to be resilient to all kinds of potential abuse. The assumption is made that both players want to have a good time and will play fairly. Now, you might disagree with that approach, but this is where they are coming from. They are expecting you to play your opponent, not to play the rules.
Define ‘want to have a good time and play fairly’ please. That can vary between people. And again, not a limitless number of opponents to choose from.
To put it another way, if someone places a model with a 12” base that makes it impossible to attack, they have clearly done it on purpose for that specific reason, and refuse to budge on any accommodation… walk away. Seriously, life is way too short, and if they have done that, it really will be the least of the issues you will experience while playing them.
I’ll put it yet another way – making a base like that would be like making yourself invulnerable by glitching yourself into a wall in Battlefield or Call of Duty. Yes, the ‘rules’ permit it. But what have you actually gained other than ruining the enjoyment of other people.
I do actually agree with you here. I appreciate ‘play with like minded opponents’ – hey, I do it myself. And I’ve walked away from players that I think are bad for the game. But expecting accommodation opens up its own can of worms as well. Part of me feels a more resilient, robust system would have solved this issue before it even came up...
A points system in the books that allows the phrase "2000 points" to be understood universally.
Why do you assume that is automatically more balanced than a system developed by a community? I have a feeling there are many on these forums who may disagreE.
Because I don’t always trust gamers to do a good job? Gamers are often selfish and lazy. You're a professional. You're one of the few. Don't hold gamers to your standards. There are house rules forums throughout the internet littered with the corpses of terrible player designed solutions to 'balance'.
I did not post that comment but, if you are interested, I could dig up some lists tomorrow that we have actually used. Would be happy to go through the thought processes that went to create them too...
This is something I would call you on - miniatures/war games have existed for decades without a balancing points system. Perversely, it was GW that had a big hand in getting people to rely on points.
I would actually like to see this as well, for what its worth Matt. Genuine curiosity here – you seem like an interesting guy, and I’d like to see how you organise your games, and if there is anything I can learn from how you do yours.
It could. But it could also mean that 99% are just used to them. It is a ballsy approach to go against that kind of expectation but, surely, it is good to have something go against the status quo from time to tinme (I do understand the counter 'yes, but not in my favourite game!' http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/i/a/c944477abc92c1c101da485e07ff06d8.gif).
Being just used to them is a thing. But it could also be representative of game theory and game mechanisms evolving over time. And darwins survival of the fittest implying the successful traits last longer-Points have proved their worth. Going back to non-points based gaming in the 80s or earlier is quite different – with the benefit of hindsight, a lot of the things that flew back then wouldn’t fly now. Games were pretty terrible and god awfully clunky back then. And I say that as a player who quite happily ignores points and standard scenarios in favour of home brewed scenarios and ‘cool’ and more importantly, ‘interesting’ match ups. Being different for the sake of being different isn’t very clever.
Running a tiny gaming company myself (which I really should be attending to instead of typing this!) I can understand that GW has to do things in a different way. I (and the other companies you mention) have the luxury of jumping onto forums and chatting directly to gamers and we only have ourselves to answer to if something goes wrong. GW is a very different beast with a 'proper' company structure and shareholders to answer to. As companies, we all play with live ammunition on the Internet, but GW's shells are somewhat heavier and the is a bigger explosion if they drop them, so I can understand why they err towards caution.
Wow, that was a weird analogy, no idea where that came from!
It’s a good analogy though – I like it. Gw are so much bigger than their competition, a lot if people seem to forget that. Most gaming companies rely on what amounts to charity to get their product out - most playtesting is volunteer based in my experience. Huge success for a company like Corvus belli is a drop in the bucket for gw.
But, being a professional game designer, I do find it difficult not to take the next step - in short, I believe that if I could get you down here to play a few games, I could have at least a 50% chance of changing your mind http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/i/a/c944477abc92c1c101da485e07ff06d8.gifDoing that over the Internet is more difficult, but talking about games is almost as good as playing them, so why not explore that route.
This. This right here is the key. And being frank Matt, this is whats needed. I got into that whole ‘homebrew/diy’ wargaming scene courtesy of two old boys who I have the privelige of plaing against on Friday nights. Now, prior to this, I played my WMHs, my Infinities etc., and these guys introduce me to Flames of War, historicals and so on. More crucially to playing new wargames, they introduced me to playing wargames in new ways. I’ve seen the value in it, and as much as I love points based games, pugs and tournaments, I also genuinely love the DIY approach, and sitting in the driving seat with designing my own missions and scenarios. I’ve gotten a few other guys into playing this way as well, and it’s a huge amount of fun. My approachis simple: both approaches have value. Neither is perfect, and neither is the ‘go-to’ in every situation. Theres plenty times where I don’t want to have to deal with the hassle of a three-weekend DIY game – I just want a pick up and play one instead. Or vice versa.
But seriously. Reaching out. Getting people involved. Getting people actively involved. Showing the value of different ways of playing while being essentially ‘learning on the job’. That is the best way of 'selling' that style of play. And FYI, I'd be privileged to have a game with you - just not aos!
Put another way, you list all your issues with AoS, and I can respect and understand all of them. But if you like Warhammer and GW games as a whole (and I make the presumption that this applies to everyone who posts on these forums - otherwise it is just plain weird), then I also believe there is at least something in AoS that you can enjoy. And if you enjoy it, and I enjoy it, we can chat about it - and everyone wins!
you don’t need to enjoy Warhammer or GW games (I… don’t) to see the value in this. Its not an AOS thing so much as a gaming thing. Like I said, what you see as value in AOS – well I already do it, just in Infinity and Flames of War.
Suppose, just for a moment, that playing is not the core point of the game, just the end result. After all, we all put time in building and painting models before we play. We spend hours on forums discussing them. We spend time building army lists (for some games, anyway http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/i/a/c944477abc92c1c101da485e07ff06d8.gif). Suppose the idea of AoS is that this is all extended into creating (and I cannot believe I am about to use this word) a narrative for your games?
This is very familiar territory to anyone who plays RPGs.
But AoS is not an RPG, you say. Well, no. But suppose it is meant to bring that kind of creative element to miniatures games. Just suppose.
What I am saying is that AoS is clearly a departure from previous Warhammer games (except, actually, the first editions, thinking about it - in that respect it may be the 'truest' Warhammer in decades). Old assumptions might not necessarily apply...
RPGs and wargames share a lot of the same DNA. That creative approach can add a huge deal to both if you ask me. By the way, don’t forget ‘writing fluff’ as part of what people put into the game.
Now, you see, this is difficult to accept as an idea.
40k is the most widely played miniatures game in the world, by far, and has been for many, many years. Two strangers can meet up, pull out armies and begin playing immediately. Do you really think that happens just by accident, over all those Codexes and all those units?
This is becoming less and less true. They can play against each other, but can they play against each other as equals? More and more I'm seeing people who have never played gw games - unthinkable ten years ago. More and more, you see flgs's where gw games are simpky not played, and WMH or bolt action is the go-to.
WMH: Never played it, I have to say http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/i/a/c944477abc92c1c101da485e07ff06d8.gifI collected a little force a while ago (I want to say Khador, is that right? The red guys...), but the background just never appealed to me. I also have a little problem with the whole idea of 'play like you have a pair' but, again, that is my issue and not a reflection on the game.
The background is actually rather excellent if you’re interested. They’ve been writing it now for nearly 15 years. Huge depth and grit. I genuinely encourage the RPG material especially – I was quite shocked at how brilliant it really was when I dived in. it really is a hidden gem.
As to PLYGAP – read Page 5. Its actually a very empowering message at the end of the day. Play hard, play fair, don’t whine. Learn from your mistakes. Be creative. Be cool, whether you win or lose. And don’t be a bell end to anyone. We’re all here out of a common love for great games.
A further question to the statements of more options in AoS: how may that be true when AOS has taken away a majority of gear choices for every unit? No artifacts, no special gear, no banners for units or anyone not a standard Bearer model, etc. My orc warboss cannot get a sword of heroslaying, my dark elf sorceress a ring of Hotek, my Nurgle Lord his Palanquin of nurgle. Everyone is "choose you weapon" with the choices being minorly different from each other. So my sorceress with a knife in hand, wearing her hand converted cloak to represent a magic item now has no way to represent them in the game without making up rules
AOS is responsible for one of the worst ideas I've seen for measuring. Not only does it use true LOS, but it makes it even worse by having all measurement be from the model with the base being ignored. It sounds like a lot people ignore this, but that's what the rules actually say. And those rules are TERRIBLE.
autumnlotus wrote: A further question to the statements of more options in AoS: how may that be true when AOS has taken away a majority of gear choices for every unit? No artifacts, no special gear, no banners for units or anyone not a standard Bearer model, etc. My orc warboss cannot get a sword of heroslaying, my dark elf sorceress a ring of Hotek, my Nurgle Lord his Palanquin of nurgle. Everyone is "choose you weapon" with the choices being minorly different from each other. So my sorceress with a knife in hand, wearing her hand converted cloak to represent a magic item now has no way to represent them in the game without making up rules
To be fair. In wfb (or gw games in general...), of all those hundreds and hundreds of 'potential' options, how many of them actually get fielded? A bare handful is the answer. In other words, it's not so much options as the illusion of options. I'd rather have five or six 'real' options than all that wasted paper and ink. Heck, in WMH, I don't get to customise my models loadouts at all, and it's fine and has a lot of options.
autumnlotus wrote: A further question to the statements of more options in AoS: how may that be true when AOS has taken away a majority of gear choices for every unit? No artifacts, no special gear, no banners for units or anyone not a standard Bearer model, etc. My orc warboss cannot get a sword of heroslaying, my dark elf sorceress a ring of Hotek, my Nurgle Lord his Palanquin of nurgle. Everyone is "choose you weapon" with the choices being minorly different from each other. So my sorceress with a knife in hand, wearing her hand converted cloak to represent a magic item now has no way to represent them in the game without making up rules
To be fair. In wfb (or gw games in general...), of all those hundreds and hundreds of 'potential' options, how many of them actually get fielded? A bare handful is the answer. In other words, it's not so much options as the illusion of options. I'd rather have five or six 'real' options than all that wasted paper and ink. Heck, in WMH, I don't get to customise my models loadouts at all, and it's fine and has a lot of options.
I think a lot of this is the desire to make AoS a simpler game to get started on than 40k. In 40k, people agonize over loadouts to models, which makes the modelling end difficult for the beginner (plasma, melta, or grav? three hours after reading forums, you still have no idea). You spend forever figuring out which of 5 weapon options to equip, and then curse yourself when you picked the "wrong" one after you lose your first game and think, "if only...".
In my experience they only items that were NEVER used were the spell thieving blade and the flying carpet. But it is a fair counter point. But in AoS you have 3 choices max, the weapons in the model sprues, where the weapons don't change much. I don't ask for convoluted rules, but right now the game is GW-fan Warmachine, but with no facing no points and no actual balancing. Really the two things I like about Fantasy are customization of models and unique Lore of the armies. AOS has neither currently
I am not sure there is any actual blame - sometimes stuff just happens.
...
You can say that if more people had bought WFB, it would not have gone away. However, the reasons for that not happening are up for discussion and (unfortunately) there is no solid evidence for any argument. All we know for certain is that it was not performing.
The natural reaction is to blame GW because, well, that is what people like to do Mind you, we should also bear in mind that product lines have finite life spans and WFB had a very, very good run. * Shrug * Maybe it was just its time.
Releasing only two supplements to the rules in 18 months after a new edition, constantly raising prices to an untenable level, creating rules to benefit the player if they use more and more models... yet most of the time in the AOS defense threads the players get blamed for not buying enough.
Pretty much this. these are good examples of why sales tanked in WHFB.
My point is that blaming customers for the failure of a game is the ultimate in arrogance. all the questions you asked are solved by market research, polls, interactions with customers, play-testing, and feedback. How ignorant can a company be to just shrug their shoulders and say "well, they hate what we sell. scrap it and try again," with no attempt to increase sales or to answer some of the very questions you posed.
If WHFB had reached market saturation as you imply, and there were no other possible new players or miniature buyers, why are alternative games seeing veritable explosions in sales and growth? Mantic cant print their rulebook fast enough to keep up with the demand for it.
And on a personal level, I have over 1,000 painted skaven. I've been collecting them for years, I got old metal that was released 20 years ago and new plastic that came out this year. I have somewhere near 15,000 points, which is useless in AoS. (I ran a clan Morrs list.) So I get WHFB is dead, and I get AoS is a new game that needs to work out the kinks and can stand on its own, But my point is this.
If GW cancelled WHFB because it wasn't making enough money in the same way that they did Bloodbowl, Man-o-War, Necromunda, Mordheim, Battlefleet Gothic, Epic, Space Marine, Gorka-Morka, and Inquisitor, whats to say they wont do it to AoS? or 40K? What incentive do I, as a customer, have to support this fledgling game that clearly can't stand on its own yet? and if I don't support it, will you again tell me it only failed because of me? I don't really have a dog in this race. its not my game, my company, or my problem. if it gets playable I'll play it. I choose to focus on 40K right now, and I don't think its due to any "misconceptions." I just really, really hate the concept that I somehow "failed" a company.
To me the only misconception is from GW itself about what their player base wants or needs from a wargame. They choose to not know or care what their customers need, and if their ignorance doesn't generate enough sales they will stop making the game.
Releasing only two supplements to the rules in 18 months after a new edition, constantly raising prices to an untenable level, creating rules to benefit the player if they use more and more models... yet most of the time in the AOS defense threads the players get blamed for not buying enough.
That point where releases stopped for 8e? I think that might well have been when the decision to create the End Times and AoS was made...
I am not dismissing the Old World (still playing there myself in both 8e and WFRP!). I am saying that, in terms of current support, it is gone - hence the spilt milk thing. We can continue to have conversations about what we are doing in the Old World, but I am not sure they are going to be productive to this particular topic. Too many bad memories
Right now though, we have rules where my dudes wound goblins as easily as dragons. Cheers, but it’s a bit silly, if you ask me.
Well this is where AoS is a bit deceptive. The to wound roll is the same, but the effects of that wound are different (different save, different number of wounds until model removal and, in the case of the dragon, degrading stats).
Get where you are coming from, but it is not the whole story. Another half chapter on top
This risks fracturing the community though. It walks you down the road of every group supposedly playing AOS, but in reality theyre essentially playing different games. Its very hard to build beyond a local player group when things are like this; when you don’t have a defined and structured set of governing rules that define the game..
I am not so certain about this - and this is more my field, as this is what RPGs have been dealing with since well, since D&D first appeared. No one plays the same way with any given RPG, but when you join a new group, you sit down, get familiar with the rules of the house, and then play on. Or not, if you find you are not getting on with them (in my experience, people are likely to be the main factor here, rather than rules).
Maybe AoS can forge ahead in a similar fashion.
Or not - I really don't have the answers here, I just raise it as a possibility. No one knows where AoS is going to be in five years time, if it is around at all.
I’ve made this point before, but the main strength of tournaments is as organised play. Everyone doing their own thing risks all sorts of problems. AOS is not a tournament game. And that’s OK. But really, tournaments require a different, more structured, organised, and most importantly, a standard, defined and universal approach.
But...
Talking about the 40k scene here, that hasn't been true for a while either - first the shift to 1,850 points from 1,500, but even today there are limitations based on formations, how many Codexes you can use, Lords of War, D Weapons and so on. Every tournament seems to have something different, built upon a common framework. But they list it all in their tournament packs.
AoS could do the same thing - it is not as if it would be complicated
* Should say, I am not advocating AoS as a tournament game, just saying if someone wanted to use it as such, they could *
Beyond that, It very well might be the ‘only way of playing 40k’. Let me explain. There is a reason for me saying that. To be honest, ‘how’ people play is a thing. For a lot of people, unfortunately they don’t have massive amounts of time to dedicate to gaming. the most accessible way of getting a few games in is to head to the shop, get a table for a few hours and default to a standard mission of a standard size. Pick Up and Play 101. For a lot of people, especially in the states. this is the only way they can afford to get involved and play. Hence a default.
By this rationale, AoS is not great as a pick up game.
Yeah, I might agree with that. In the very least, you could get me to say that there are better pick up games.
However, not my point Nor is the tournament side, really. My position is not that AoS can be all things to all gamers. My only point, in this thread at least, is that some of the things that have been said about the game are wrong and if those erroneous things are what has been stopping someone play, it might be good if they took another look.
As I said right at the beginning, if big heroic guys in shiny armour is not your thing, you are going to be wanting another game.
I would also argue that rather than dismissing how people play, and dismissing point-based games (which you do, and which I think is unfair – point based games have proved their worth)
I agree completely. I play 8e and 40k, and my own games are points-based. In fact, we are just turning Victory at Sea from no points to points-based.
Deadnight wrote: If you’re putting people out of their comfort zone, at least give them some tools to show them the way.
This is something I actually mentioned to a certain someone in the design studio - that I had thought there would have been various gudies and suggestions to show people how to do cool things in AoS. In fact, I had expected that in the first hardback.
I can sort of see why they didn't. On the other hand, I would not be surprised if something very much like this appeared within the next year or so.
Deadnight wrote: Define ‘want to have a good time and play fairly’ please.
We can debate about the good time. I am not so certain the playing fair need be up for discussion. I mean, we all know when we are taking the mick, right? You seem like a nice chap - surely you do?
I would actually like to see this as well, for what its worth Matt. Genuine curiosity here – you seem like an interesting guy, and I’d like to see how you organise your games, and if there is anything I can learn from how you do yours.
Another long post (yeah, you can tell I am a writer ), but I listed out a couple of Battleplans here;
Deadnight wrote: And FYI, I'd be privileged to have a game with you - just not aos!
You would be more than welcome - you anywhere near the southwest? Haven't had a decent game of 40k in a while. Or we could pull out Dredd, or Victory at Sea
Deadnight wrote: More and more, you see flgs's where gw games are simpky not played, and WMH or bolt action is the go-to.
The one thing I would say here (and I accept it is not particularly helpful to the discussion) is watch what happens over the next ten years. In 2025, it may be that GW games are still not being played. However, I would not be confident that any of the other games mentioned in this thread (including my own!) will be played either - it will be something new.
Something I have seen in our local club is that games like X-Wing and Infinity come and go, but the one constant that always swings back are the GW games. They have the longevity. That is their strength.
There is a lot of inertia there, and no one has come close to battling it in the long term. Maybe the seeds have already been planted for that with Bolt Action, perhaps, but we'll have to see.
Maybe (and this will be a terrifying thought for some), games of 2025 will have no points, be free form, and we will be looking at AoS as the Father of them all. We'll be talking about those weirdos who insist on archaic points systems
* No I don't think that will happen - but let's consider it! *
You would be more than welcome - you anywhere near the southwest? Haven't had a decent game of 40k in a while. Or we could pull out Dredd, or Victory at Sea
Cold white bitter north (aka Scotland) and originally from Ireland im afraid! One of your boys came to our con (warpcon) a few years back and demoed victory at sea - I thought it was a pretty nifty little game! also liked starship troopers but I think it was too limited an IP to do anything with. But really, it was the first properly 'modern' Wargame - even had reactions!
The one thing I would say here (and I accept it is not particularly helpful to the discussion) is watch what happens over the next ten years. In 2025, it may be that GW games are still not being played. However, I would not be confident that any of the other games mentioned in this thread (including my own!) will be played either - it will be something new.
You know, I started posting here about 3 or 4 years ago. I remember one of my first posts was having a go at a guy who was saying that gw games would be the only games still kicking about in five years time, and that all the other games with the possible exception of WMH would be gone by then. Well, we are almost at his five years and WMH is stronger, infinity is stronger, malifaux is stronger and a whole host of smaller games have come through and grabbed their own space. Of all the games he mentioned that would be dead - I think anima tactics was the only one that bit the dust. And of those gw games? yeah. Wfb. Dead. Hobbit. Doa. Lotr. Dead. Specialist games. Dead. Shrug...
Now here is a guy saying the exact same thing: in ten years time, go will still be there and everyone else will be gone. :p
Pp have been there 15years now. Think about that Matt. Thats a long, long time. And they've been getting bigger the whole time. Fifteen years? That's as long as 40k was around when I hopped onboard. Corvus belli are come on about ten, and both are going strong and looking to succeed. Their rpg finally looks to bring their IP to life. Wyrd are solid. I don't see gw disappearing in ten years time. But I can see them shrinking. I'm not one for doomsaying, but Theyve been bleeding goodwill and customers massively over five years and it's starting to bite. that 400lb gorilla is no longer the 800lb gorilla it was. Back around 2003 when I started war gaming (eye of terror campaign!), you played 40k, or your alternative was wfb. You'd know about 'other games' as these things that were plyted 'somewhere', but you'd never even heard of it third hand d. Now, it's nowhere near that simple. Gw have retreated in their market share and space ship games and skirmish games and mass battle games have all stepped in to fill the void- it's never been a better time to be a gamer.
So I'll take your statement with a pinch of salt Matt - call me sceptical.
I mean, it's enough of a blank canvas that you can make a place for them, you can come up with your own Altdorf or Karak Eight Peaks or Border Princes, but at that point, why not just write your own setting?
Don't get me wrong, being able to make up your own stuff is wonderful, leaving room for that has always been one of GW's greatest strengths, but there's such a thing as taking it too far.
I'm a Dogs of War player, and literally *ALL* of my favorite characters are gone. Same with my favorite units. And my non-favorites, too. Complaining about losing "official" rules for a handful of very old characters would be like me being upset that GW isn't supporting the original Regiments of Renown from waaay back when GW used leaded pewter. If your army had been Squatted, I think you take a different tack over losing a few models versus the whole fething thing. It's really fething petty is what it is.
Coming up with good backgrounds is not easy. Tolkien spent years refining Middle Earth, much as GW spent years building up the Old World. They are rich worlds, and the average gamer simply does not have the time, ability or inclination to make something like this in their spare time. Also, the Old World is awfully full. The very richness of detail that GW has added over the years has progressively removed places for players to make their own. With the broad development of Fluff and emphasis on hordes, Fantasy had become more pseudo-historical gaming than actual "fantasy" gaming.
Being able to make stuff up allows me to play my Dogs of War without "points" cost issues. For me, that's a good thing. I don't see what's gone too far.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jack Flask wrote: My problem with people's conduct is something the moderators have consistently refused to address, so why bother.
I respect the time and effort they put in, but at the same time I can help but feel a little annoyed. What are all these negative posts actually adding to this board? What are they adding to the conversation? Why is it that apparently only people who like AoS the ones who have to put up with this? No other board has a contigent of the same people who admit to not liking the game, and have no intention to ever like the game, constantly filling their threads with a constant stream of the same opinions stated like facts.
I called out the Mods for their passive aggressive support of passive aggressive neg spam across all AoS topics, and they basically admitted they weren't going to do gak about it, then locked it. To me, the big surprises were: a) that the thread lasted as long as it did, and b) that the thread wasn't memory holed.
I've mostly walked away from the Dakka AoS forums, because they're a mostly useless disaster, and it's mostly due to the Mods not reining in the nonsense. I appreciate Matt posting these little gems from time to time, but it's largely a waste of time as Dakka is so poisonous toward AoS. I simply don't enjoy the AoS forums or threads, so I don't bother with them.
So, honest question:
- Where are people having polite, "grown up" conversations about AoS?
You know, somewhere that isn't overrun by constant anti-AoS spam, with the implicit support of the mod team?
Probably not warseer no. *glances into warseer* - no there are a few locked threads there now with rage going back and forth and mud slinging at epic levels still.
- Where are people having polite, "grown up" conversations about AoS?
Just a thought, but why don't you try Matt's blog where he usually posts these articles? Or another blog. Someone said that eventually AoS fans will find their own places away from the more traditional forums.
- Where are people having polite, "grown up" conversations about AoS?
I am not going to leave Dakka, but I would be interested in knowing this too (have a feeling it is not Warseer )
AOS only sites with a strong dedicated fan base and plenty of interested people... oh wait I don't think they exist. I wonder why? (I looked, could not find one).
If AOS talk is not what you like here it's probably worth making your own website that way you can have a echo chamber. Im sure you will have plenty of fans rallying to enjoy parroting there. WHich will be great for all of us. That way the mods are not unnecessarily attacked by a few people here in the AOS subforums for incompetence and even better you guys get what it seems like you desire.
Making a website is easy too. Win Win.
Reddit sub is pretty dead and also allows no down votes (which is bad unless you like happy pat your back for everything places).
- Where are people having polite, "grown up" conversations about AoS?
The Reddit group is pretty civil and I hear there is a Facebook group (no FB account, so I haven't seen it), but most of the communities I've found have just been a bunch of grumpy grognards taking turns insulting AoS and AoS fans.
I still have hope for this community. Despite the "Boo. Boo Age of Sigmar. Boo." derailments, there are several posters here who positively contribute and discuss the game. I mean, every thread gets derailed, but almost all of them start from a positive contribution... unlike Warseer.
I mean, it's enough of a blank canvas that you can make a place for them, you can come up with your own Altdorf or Karak Eight Peaks or Border Princes, but at that point, why not just write your own setting?
Don't get me wrong, being able to make up your own stuff is wonderful, leaving room for that has always been one of GW's greatest strengths, but there's such a thing as taking it too far.
I'm a Dogs of War player, and literally *ALL* of my favorite characters are gone. Same with my favorite units. And my non-favorites, too. Complaining about losing "official" rules for a handful of very old characters would be like me being upset that GW isn't supporting the original Regiments of Renown from waaay back when GW used leaded pewter. If your army had been Squatted, I think you take a different tack over losing a few models versus the whole fething thing. It's really fething petty is what it is.
Coming up with good backgrounds is not easy. Tolkien spent years refining Middle Earth, much as GW spent years building up the Old World. They are rich worlds, and the average gamer simply does not have the time, ability or inclination to make something like this in their spare time. Also, the Old World is awfully full. The very richness of detail that GW has added over the years has progressively removed places for players to make their own. With the broad development of Fluff and emphasis on hordes, Fantasy had become more pseudo-historical gaming than actual "fantasy" gaming.
Being able to make stuff up allows me to play my Dogs of War without "points" cost issues. For me, that's a good thing. I don't see what's gone too far.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jack Flask wrote: My problem with people's conduct is something the moderators have consistently refused to address, so why bother.
I respect the time and effort they put in, but at the same time I can help but feel a little annoyed. What are all these negative posts actually adding to this board? What are they adding to the conversation? Why is it that apparently only people who like AoS the ones who have to put up with this? No other board has a contigent of the same people who admit to not liking the game, and have no intention to ever like the game, constantly filling their threads with a constant stream of the same opinions stated like facts.
I called out the Mods for their passive aggressive support of passive aggressive neg spam across all AoS topics, and they basically admitted they weren't going to do gak about it, then locked it. To me, the big surprises were:
a) that the thread lasted as long as it did, and
b) that the thread wasn't memory holed.
I've mostly walked away from the Dakka AoS forums, because they're a mostly useless disaster, and it's mostly due to the Mods not reining in the nonsense. I appreciate Matt posting these little gems from time to time, but it's largely a waste of time as Dakka is so poisonous toward AoS. I simply don't enjoy the AoS forums or threads, so I don't bother with them.
So, honest question:
- Where are people having polite, "grown up" conversations about AoS?
You know, somewhere that isn't overrun by constant anti-AoS spam, with the implicit support of the mod team?
Warseer is even more toxic. and I feel like people are having adult conversations on the topic, people are just going to always talk about where they disagree rather than where they agree, its the nature of the beasts that are internet boards. There are a lot of threads on here that discuss the gameplay, lore, house rules and comp systems.
I think the issue is people are polarized, you're either a hater or a fanboy with nothing in between. I know I still post because I do want to see how to make it work. for good or for bad, GW is really my only gaming option. so even though Matt started the thread with good intentions, even the title suggests that people are misunderstanding which is kinda a weird way to start a conversation.
I do play AoS, and I have had fun playing it. It just has a lot to be desired and I like to see where people have dealt with that. I don't just mean rules issues, there's also a grieving process over WHFB being gone, and sometimes people just need to explain why they are upset.
again to make it personal, I have three AoS armies I bring. I have a good melee mix of pestilence and stormvermin, I have a big creature army thats a ton of fun, a clan eshin fast moving list, and I have a skryre gun line. they are easy to bring and fun to play, I can usually match the power of what my opponent wants to bring. It still isn't ranked battle, I have hundreds of models that will never be fielded again and that was the core of my old army. (100 slaves and 256 clan rats.)
I don't think its hopeless, but I also don't think there's nothing wrong with sharing my reservations about both the state of their currently supported products and having fears about what is to come in the future.
OK, thanks. Glad to know I wasn't going crazy at there not being obvious places to discuss. ____
@KK - that one thread doesn't really address the underlying issue, when, in theory, the entire discussion board is supposed to be spam / troll free. Given where Dakka sits on WFB, you should simply separate AoS discussion from WFB discussion into 2 separate fora, and then clamp down on spam. Or maybe just close the whole thing down.
I called out the Mods for their passive aggressive support of passive aggressive neg spam across all AoS topics, and they basically admitted they weren't going to do gak about it, then locked it. To me, the big surprises were:
a) that the thread lasted as long as it did, and
b) that the thread wasn't memory holed.
I've mostly walked away from the Dakka AoS forums, because they're a mostly useless disaster, and it's mostly due to the Mods not reining in the nonsense. I appreciate Matt posting these little gems from time to time, but it's largely a waste of time as Dakka is so poisonous toward AoS. I simply don't enjoy the AoS forums or threads, so I don't bother with them.
So, honest question:
- Where are people having polite, "grown up" conversations about AoS?
You know, somewhere that isn't overrun by constant anti-AoS spam, with the implicit support of the mod team?
I seem to remember that thread, and the reason is was locked had to do with you being just as passive aggressive and nasty. I recall you referred to those who disliked aos as 'toolbags', amongst others.
And by the way, you call for grown up conversations but Dismiss the negative opinions as 'spam'. You don't get to do that. Grown up conversations dont work that way.
Deadnight wrote:
I seem to remember that thread, and the reason is was locked had to do with you being just as passive aggressive and nasty. I recall you referred to those who disliked aos as 'toolbags', amongst others.
And by the way, you call for grown up conversations but Dismiss the negative opinions as 'spam'. You don't get to do that. Grown up conversations dont work that way.
In his defense, he isn't the only person who has been complaining about it and it is EXTREMELY annoying, to the point where I left this forum for over a month because I had a hard time remaining civil in the face of constant "Boo. Boo Age of Sigmar. Boo."
There's having opinions and there's having discussions, and this forum doesn't do a lot to differentiate the two. Personally, I think that when you derail a discussion by espousing your opinion, you aren't contributing anything except your own masturbatory need for attention at any cost.
Kilkrazy wrote:We've got a thread about people liking AoS and telling each other how they like it.
Deadnight wrote:
I seem to remember that thread, and the reason is was locked had to do with you being just as passive aggressive and nasty. I recall you referred to those who disliked aos as 'toolbags', amongst others.
And by the way, you call for grown up conversations but Dismiss the negative opinions as 'spam'. You don't get to do that. Grown up conversations dont work that way.
In his defense, he isn't the only person who has been complaining about it and it is EXTREMELY annoying, to the point where I left this forum for over a month because I had a hard time remaining civil in the face of constant "Boo. Boo Age of Sigmar. Boo."
There's having opinions and there's having discussions, and this forum doesn't do a lot to differentiate the two. Personally, I think that when you derail a discussion by espousing your opinion, you aren't contributing anything except your own masturbatory need for attention at any cost.
Kilkrazy wrote:We've got a thread about people liking AoS and telling each other how they like it.
A WHOLE thread! Score!
Are you not seeing any hypocrisy in how you post...?
Or does it only matter when people of a differing opinion do it?
JohnHwangDD wrote: OK, thanks. Glad to know I wasn't going crazy at there not being obvious places to discuss.
____
@KK - that one thread doesn't really address the underlying issue, when, in theory, the entire discussion board is supposed to be spam / troll free. Given where Dakka sits on WFB, you should simply separate AoS discussion from WFB discussion into 2 separate fora, and then clamp down on spam. Or maybe just close the whole thing down.
Not sure what can be done about this. If people want to make some more threads about how great AoS is, there's nothing to stop them. The anti-AoS people have kept out of the thread I mentioned, as far as I know. Do we need two threads about how great AoS is, with people who dislike it not making any posts?
It's a bit unreasonable to join a discussion forum and think that no-one will ever disagree with one's opinions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
coldgaming wrote: I've found the Facebook groups are much more positive/active than the forums now.
Facebook pages are not discussion forums. They are like personal blogs where you go because you like the same stuff as the guy who runs the page.
You cannot expect to join in a discussion forum and not have people discuss things. Sometimes other people's opinion will not be the same as yours.
coldgaming wrote: I've found the Facebook groups are much more positive/active than the forums now.
Well yes, that's because only people who like AoS join the FB page, while people on dakka mostly hate AoS but still go to the sub-forum because it's there and they want to vent. I read FB more than dakka nowadays because each FB page is a community of people who actually like and are enthusiastic about the thing they're discussing, which is the reason why I'm in this hobby in the first place. Discussion among people with polarized opinions can be great, but there's a point where negativity and repetition means I learn nothing new and reading more stuff does nothing but bring me down and sap my enthusiasm, which is completely pointless. I heard all the arguments in the first week after release. Only problem is most FB pages are pretty badly moderated, but dakka has such loose moderation already that it isn't that much of a loss.
pox wrote: for good or for bad, GW is really my only gaming option.
That's rough man
Edit: there are quite a few 'negative' threads in the 40kgen pop area too. It's just not a Pollyanna time for GW games.
It basically boils down to placement. I have three stores in town, a card store, a longbeard store, and a GW store. The Card store has moved to Magic and is filled with teens that really don't like the wargamers so its a no go. the longbeard store is filled with older gamers that just hate every game they play, no matter the age or type of game. Even the D&D players aren't cheerful in there. At the opposite end of the spectrum, my GW store is bright and clean, our local redshirt is an awesome guy and the players there are a good mix of vets and new players.
Add to that that I was out of the game for a while so I never played eighth edition and all my models are GW, and you have the recipie for sunk cost fallacy even if I am aware of it. This makes me look for ways to make it work. I dont wanna be a longbeard!
@KK - just pretend for a moment that every WMH thread had a group of 40k diehards telling the WMH players how much they sucked for being stupid enough to play a gak game. Multiple such posts on every fething page of every fething thead. Would the mods really stand for that?
Those 40k diehards should be allowed to gak all over the WMH players day and night, as it's just a minor difference of opinion that they're entitled to express, right?
JohnHwangDD wrote: OK, thanks. Glad to know I wasn't going crazy at there not being obvious places to discuss.
____
@KK - that one thread doesn't really address the underlying issue, when, in theory, the entire discussion board is supposed to be spam / troll free. Given where Dakka sits on WFB, you should simply separate AoS discussion from WFB discussion into 2 separate fora, and then clamp down on spam. Or maybe just close the whole thing down.
Not sure what can be done about this. If people want to make some more threads about how great AoS is, there's nothing to stop them. The anti-AoS people have kept out of the thread I mentioned, as far as I know. Do we need two threads about how great AoS is, with people who dislike it not making any posts?
It's a bit unreasonable to join a discussion forum and think that no-one will ever disagree with one's opinions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
coldgaming wrote: I've found the Facebook groups are much more positive/active than the forums now.
Facebook pages are not discussion forums. They are like personal blogs where you go because you like the same stuff as the guy who runs the page.
You cannot expect to join in a discussion forum and not have people discuss things. Sometimes other people's opinion will not be the same as yours.
Simples.
Split AoS off into it's own sub forum, then either keep WFB or merge it with GW specialist / unsupported.
The issue is not differing opinions.
The issue is people who are flirting with the troll moniker by persistently posting negativity in discussions of a game that they have no intention of ever playing - and even more confusingly in some cases, haven't played a GW product for years.
This is baiting, pure and simple.
I could just as easily start derailing threads in WMH, Infinity - any of the other Dakka sub-forums with persistently negative opinions. The same opinions. Ad Nauseum. Regardless of general topic of discussion. Because apparently, there is nothing* to stop me doing that.
That is precisely what is happening with this forum.
With the separation of WFB & AoS, those who are continuing with/missing WFB have a forum to continue with.
Those who have an interest in AoS have a forum to continue with.
*"This behavior is known as "trolling" and can take many forms. In some cases, the behavior is blatant, such as spam or inflammatory comments. Other times, the content posted is seemingly innocuous at first glance but is designed to incite a negative response from other users and create a flame war."
JohnHwangDD wrote: @KK - Why? It's not like anything comes of it. Swasty is still constantly stirring the pot, for example.
Aside from the fact that many posts in this thread are derailing...this thread...
Most times you will not know if something happened in terms of Moderation as most Moderation, outside of in thread warning and such, is conducted in private.
So again, if you see a post that breaks the rules of the site - report it.
I GUARANTEE that EVERY one gets looked at by a Moderator.
JohnHwangDD wrote: OK, thanks. Glad to know I wasn't going crazy at there not being obvious places to discuss.
____
@KK - that one thread doesn't really address the underlying issue, when, in theory, the entire discussion board is supposed to be spam / troll free. Given where Dakka sits on WFB, you should simply separate AoS discussion from WFB discussion into 2 separate fora, and then clamp down on spam. Or maybe just close the whole thing down.
Not sure what can be done about this. If people want to make some more threads about how great AoS is, there's nothing to stop them. The anti-AoS people have kept out of the thread I mentioned, as far as I know. Do we need two threads about how great AoS is, with people who dislike it not making any posts?
It's a bit unreasonable to join a discussion forum and think that no-one will ever disagree with one's opinions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
coldgaming wrote: I've found the Facebook groups are much more positive/active than the forums now.
Facebook pages are not discussion forums. They are like personal blogs where you go because you like the same stuff as the guy who runs the page.
You cannot expect to join in a discussion forum and not have people discuss things. Sometimes other people's opinion will not be the same as yours.
Simples.
Split AoS off into it's own sub forum, then either keep WFB or merge it with GW specialist / unsupported.
The issue is not differing opinions.
The issue is people who are flirting with the troll moniker by persistently posting negativity in discussions of a game that they have no intention of ever playing - and even more confusingly in some cases, haven't played a GW product for years.
This is baiting, pure and simple.
I could just as easily start derailing threads in WMH, Infinity - any of the other Dakka sub-forums with persistently negative opinions. The same opinions. Ad Nauseum. Regardless of general topic of discussion. Because apparently, there is nothing* to stop me doing that.
That is precisely what is happening with this forum.
With the separation of WFB & AoS, those who are continuing with/missing WFB have a forum to continue with.
Those who have an interest in AoS have a forum to continue with.
*"This behavior is known as "trolling" and can take many forms. In some cases, the behavior is blatant, such as spam or inflammatory comments. Other times, the content posted is seemingly innocuous at first glance but is designed to incite a negative response from other users and create a flame war."
I really wish they'd done this. It'd make looking for any WFB content a lot easier. Instead anything previously WFB is now under the AoS forum. Irritating.
TheCustomLime wrote: Maybe I'm wrong about the OP and he does recognize that AoS has problems but he just doesn't think that these are necessarily issues.
Oh, that is a good point to raise...
Let me see if I can explain my position on this.
I can understand that AoS has caused some problems with other people - I have seen that in my own gaming group. I can understand that some were annoyed about how their old game is gone (it is a tough thing, but that is probably spilt milk now), and I can understand how people can't or simply don't want to get to grips with a point-absent system.
However.
It works for me (and enough of my gaming group for it to work). And that is all I need to play it and chat about it on a forum.
But, being a professional game designer, I do find it difficult not to take the next step - in short, I believe that if I could get you down here to play a few games, I could have at least a 50% chance of changing your mind Doing that over the Internet is more difficult, but talking about games is almost as good as playing them, so why not explore that route?
Put another way, you list all your issues with AoS, and I can respect and understand all of them. But if you like Warhammer and GW games as a whole (and I make the presumption that this applies to everyone who posts on these forums - otherwise it is just plain weird), then I also believe there is at least something in AoS that you can enjoy. And if you enjoy it, and I enjoy it, we can chat about it - and everyone wins!
As for the contrarian thing, I am honestly not too fussed about that. I just get irritated when people get downright rude over a game.
(not you incidentally, but I am sure you have seen one or two others who have stepped over the line).
Oh, I'm sure if I came down to play with you and your group (Across the frickin' world, mind you) I would have a great time. Age of Sigmar is a fun game with excellent models and some of the best terrain GW has. I wholeheartedly appreciate the effort people put into their custom rule sets like the Azyr comp.
I can see that you are a devoted fan of this game and you are trying to make it work. I don't think you deserve some of the downright hate you get ITT.
Deadnight wrote:
I seem to remember that thread, and the reason is was locked had to do with you being just as passive aggressive and nasty. I recall you referred to those who disliked aos as 'toolbags', amongst others.
And by the way, you call for grown up conversations but Dismiss the negative opinions as 'spam'. You don't get to do that. Grown up conversations dont work that way.
In his defense, he isn't the only person who has been complaining about it and it is EXTREMELY annoying, to the point where I left this forum for over a month because I had a hard time remaining civil in the face of constant "Boo. Boo Age of Sigmar. Boo."
There's having opinions and there's having discussions, and this forum doesn't do a lot to differentiate the two. Personally, I think that when you derail a discussion by espousing your opinion, you aren't contributing anything except your own masturbatory need for attention at any cost.
At this point, I don't think Age of Sigmar is misunderstood. It is simply hated because of misplaced nerdrage.
It's like the Star Wars prequels. There is pretty much no place on the internet where the sentiment "I thought they were pretty good" won't instantly result in a hundred people trying to explain to you, at length, what a complete hack George Lucas is and how he ruined Star Wars forever with Jar Jar. All that time and energy that could be spent talking about movies you do like, but it is wasted complaining about the prequels because for some reason, whatever George Lucas did was the Worst Thing Ever, and you must let people know because even though everybody already agrees with you and nobody actually cares what you, personally, think about Attack of the Clones, your anguish must be heard! It is proof of your... um... having opinions?
Actually, I'm don't really understand the nerdrage. I rather liked the prequels. They weren't perfect - they had flaws, I admit - but they are a fun time and there's no other experience quite like it. It took some time, but the story issues were eventually worked out, and if you want it, there are fan versions which fix the most egregious problems. I know people had certain expectations for what the movies were going to be or should've been, but they are what they are, and it has always seemed silly to me to hold a grudge over what something isn't rather than over what it is. Just like it is okay to like something different, it is okay to dislike something as well, but holding onto a petty grudge for weeks, months, years, and decades seems like it can't really be healthy. Surely, one can not find happiness by wallowing in negativity...
Age of Sigmar will become like the Star Wars prequels. Twenty years from now, it will still sell and be popular with those who don't care what others think, but there will still be a cadre of nerds that consider themselves the biggest, most informed fans acting on the most irrational negativity, gaining only bitterness for their efforts.
There's no middle ground here. There's no explaining misconceptions. There's no differing perspective that will be heard. Because this isn't actually about Age of Sigmar, and it never was. This is about grievances unchecked, and there's never going to be the closure that some people need to move on.
Methinks that's a bit black & white. There's lots of people that were interested in a Fantasy reboot. I was. 8E had a largely solid core ruleset with a couple of glaring (but fixable) issues, it was really the prices, army size, and emphasis on gigantic things that killed it, and a reboot of sorts was in order. Quite frankly, I kind of liked the idea of the end times and a new fluff paradigm. The problem is that AoS scratches none of those itches.
The problem is that GW didn't make a reboot that addressed the problems of the old game to deliver a better experience, they came out with something that delivered and entirely different, and largely unasked-for, experience, and background that increasingly feels phoned-in and Marketing driven.
That's not misplaced nerd-rage or unchecked grievances. It's an issue of square-peg-round-hole, an incorrect solution to a previous problem.
Because this isn't actually about Age of Sigmar, and it never was. This is about grievances unchecked, and there's never going to be the closure that some people need to move on.
JohnHwangDD wrote:@KK - just pretend for a moment that every WMH thread had a group of 40k diehards telling the WMH players how much they sucked for being stupid enough to play a gak game. Multiple such posts on every fething page of every fething thead. Would the mods really stand for that?
Those 40k diehards should be allowed to gak all over the WMH players day and night, as it's just a minor difference of opinion that they're entitled to express, right?
While I'm sympathetic that AoS fans should be able to discuss the game without having to fight off challenges when they just want to discuss Stormcast tactica, this thread is specifically set up to call out the nonbelievers so complaining that they're present in a thread specifically directed at them rings hollow.
Sqorgar wrote:At this point, I don't think Age of Sigmar is misunderstood. It is simply hated because of misplaced nerdrage.
Oh, I don't think Age of Sigmar is misunderstood. I think we all quite "get it", but OP is laboring under the assumption that we would all want it if that was the case. I can only speak for myself in this specific case, but AoS isn't really doing anything new that other more established games haven't already done and better, and what it does do differently tends to stink of corporate cynicism (no point values being the logical endpoint to the general care and regard GW seems to give its rulesets, Ground Marines).
And while we can sit back and blame grognard nerdrage, it cuts both ways: I'm not the only person who has made the observation that if AoS was someone's Kickstarter or garage game, the very idea that the community would bend over backwards with scoring systems and comp packets to "improve" it would be utterly absurd. There's a non-trivial level of denial in the pro-AoS camp about how much GW's name on the box actually means, and it tends to manifest as trying to talk the game up into being more than it actually is.
Age of Sigmar will become like the Star Wars prequels. Twenty years from now, it will still sell and be popular with those who don't care what others think, but there will still be a cadre of nerds that consider themselves the biggest, most informed fans acting on the most irrational negativity, gaining only bitterness for their efforts.
If we look back a few years on this forum you can find people going to the mat for Dreadfleet, talking about how people who disliked it were just the standard GW haters looking to get their shots in. This also strikes me as a bold prediction when GW has established that any of their games that isn't 40k is ultimately expendable.
All my favourite characters are gone! Just about all Chaos characters are still present. The Chaos Gods took their favourite servants and moved them to the Mortal Realms. Your Glottkin is still working hard for Nurgle (and doing a damn good job, as it happens, seriously kicking Alarielle’s rear end).
Obviously, Alarielle is still around, and she seems to be significantly more powerful. Tyrion and Teclis are still a thing.
Speaking from an artistic point of view, Gotrek had to die. Of all the characters from the world-that-was, he was the one who was always going to be killed…
We don’t yet know the full extent of who survived the End Times and while many have gone, there are still strong links to the Old World.
Manfred, for example, has just popped up...
See, for me, the 'all my favourite characters are gone' idea is entirely secondary to the fact that the reason those characters are gone is that the setting is now something completely different to what it was.
Specific characters come and go. They always have. But the setting of WHFB is what appealed to me. I liked the fact that it was a largely generic fantasy world with Elves and Dwarfs and Orcs all duking it out. So for me, the removal of Gotrek is far less of an impact than the removal of the Old World, and the rebranding for Trademarkableness of all of the races.
There is no balance in Age of Sigmar There is, but it is in your hands.
Even if we leave the ‘dick issue’ to one side (basically, don’t be one, and have as much consideration for your opponent’s fun as your own), there are now a handful of points systems available for AoS, and they are all community-made.
And that's exactly the problem.
As others have pointed out, if anyone else released a new game that required the community to devise rules systems just to make it actually playable, they would cop all sorts of stick for it. But for some reason, we're all supposed to praise GW for it?
Nope, that's not going to happen. The end result is a fractured system that is useless for any sort of pick-up gaming, as you're never going to be able to depend on a prospective opponent playing the same rules as you.
During the days of 3rd Edition 40k, to cite an example, the vast majority of games played used the Dawn Assault mission because, for some reason, people had got it into their heads that it was the ‘fairest’ mission.
That wasn't my experience.
The vast majority of games were played using Dawn Assault simply because it was the least complicated scenario, and people didn't want to have to think about scenario rules. For the same reason, only about half of my 2nd edition games used the mission cards rather than just playing 'kill the other army' and the majority of my 4th edition games were Meat Grinders.
It was only really with 5th edition that I started to see people outside of tournaments actually show an interest in playing the game using the scenarios... as in, the way the designers had said to play it.
The problem for the designers is that they have all these other types of battles, and worlds, and models to show you, but if you are just playing 1,500 point Dawn Assault games, you are not getting any of it. You are missing out on a massive amount.
In 40k, they got around that by making alternate game modes that were interesting. Cityfight saw a fair amount of play, and for a time Apocalypse was (ahem) huge.
Seems a bit odd to go from that experience to 'Meh, just throw out all of the rules governing army composition and let people throw everything they own on the table...'
By taking the points out of Age of Sigmar (and by the way they present scenarios), there is no ‘standard’ way of playing.
Er... yes, there is. As you poitned out just above here, it's defined by the rules as presented to the players. The 'standard' way of playing AoS is to put as much or as little of your collection on the table as you feel like, pending available table space.
“The game plays like there is no difference between a goblin and a super warrior Stormcast” Another direct quote, and it is a little bit troubling that someone actually thinks this. Of course there is a difference – that goblin is going to get stomped by the Stormcast in a stand up fight. In fact, a unit of five Stormcasts is likely to trounce a veritable mob of goblins unless they are well supported.
I haven't seen anyone suggest that a goblin and a Stormcast are equivalent in the game. The issue that I've seen people complain about there is that the rules treat them as being equivalent for army building when they are clearly not actually equal.
So, if I have a model with a 12” base, no one can fight me, right? Well, if you go down that road yes, sort of.
If you meet someone with a base like that, have a quick chat and sort it out. All it requires is the application of common sense. I am pretty sure this is why this is not in the rules sheet – the designers could not conceive of anyone seriously trying this loop hole and, to be frank, I agree with them.
Given all of the discussion over the impact of using different sized bases in WHFB and 40K over the last 30 years, I find it extremely hard to believe that that designers couldn't conceive of anyone trying to garner an in-game advantage by changing the size of their model's base.
To put it another way, if someone places a model with a 12” base that makes it impossible to attack, they have clearly done it on purpose for that specific reason, and refuse to budge on any accommodation… walk away. Seriously, life is way too short, and if they have done that, it really will be the least of the issues you will experience while playing them.
And that's an easy thing to say when you use an extreme example. But reduce the size of that base to something more normal, and exactly how do you determine where to draw the line?
You don't even have to specifically change models for this... there are models on standard bases that in certain pair-ups can't actually reach other models on standard bases due to their normal base size. This is something that people noticed about three and a half seconds after the rules were released into the wild.
And you're seriously expecting people to believe that guys who actually write games rules for a living couldn't conceive of this ever happening?
Sqorgar wrote: ...
Actually, I'm don't really understand the nerdrage. I rather liked the prequels. They weren't perfect - they had flaws, I admit - but they are a fun time and there's no other experience quite like it. ...
I...
I mean I don't like AOS but you can argue that it's ok for lulz, but THE PREQUELS?
It's like reading a discussion on why people like or don't like blue cheese and then someone defends murder.
(Please note for the habitually constipated this is a statement of jest)
I like and enjoy AoS, what others see as flaws in the game I may not. Calling something a flaw is an OPINION and while some opinions may be supported by facts (I believe climate change in real, this opinion is supported by facts) when it comes to liking or disliking something it will ultimately be an emotional response (I like AoS because blah blah is not supported by fact, but by emotion)
Matt this was a brave post and I agree with you but ultimately a waste of time. People who dislike AoS fit into three main categories. They have tried AoS and didn't like it, refuse to try it because it replaced Fantasy, or they are anti-GW and will never like anything it puts out. None of these groups are going to be swayed by arguments for AoS so it is a waste of time. Similarly there are people that like AoS that wont be swayed by the arguments of people that don't like it... hence waste of time..
I cant believe I wasted my time posting in this thread... eh, its a slow work day.
Nerm86 wrote: I like and enjoy AoS, what others see as flaws in the game I may not. Calling something a flaw is an OPINION and while some opinions may be supported by facts (I believe climate change in real, this opinion is supported by facts) when it comes to liking or disliking something it will ultimately be an emotional response (I like AoS because blah blah is not supported by fact, but by emotion)
Matt this was a brave post and I agree with you but ultimately a waste of time. People who dislike AoS fit into three main categories. They have tried AoS and didn't like it, refuse to try it because it replaced Fantasy, or they are anti-GW and will never like anything it puts out. None of these groups are going to be swayed by arguments for AoS so it is a waste of time. Similarly there are people that like AoS that wont be swayed by the arguments of people that don't like it... hence waste of time..
I cant believe I wasted my time posting in this thread... eh, its a slow work day.
Or a fourth group. People that understand what the game is and don't like it for what it is. Sometimes people legitimately don't like something.
I get AOS. Read through the rules, the books, the scrolls. I do get it.
What don't I like about it?
I'm a Dogs of War player, and literally *ALL* of my favorite characters are gone. Same with my favorite units. And my non-favorites, too. Complaining about losing "official" rules for a handful of very old characters would be like me being upset that GW isn't supporting the original Regiments of Renown from waaay back when GW used leaded pewter. If your army had been Squatted, I think you take a different tack over losing a few models versus the whole fething thing. It's really fething petty is what it is.
Coming up with good backgrounds is not easy. Tolkien spent years refining Middle Earth, much as GW spent years building up the Old World. They are rich worlds, and the average gamer simply does not have the time, ability or inclination to make something like this in their spare time. Also, the Old World is awfully full. The very richness of detail that GW has added over the years has progressively removed places for players to make their own. With the broad development of Fluff and emphasis on hordes, Fantasy had become more pseudo-historical gaming than actual "fantasy" gaming.
Being able to make stuff up allows me to play my Dogs of War without "points" cost issues. For me, that's a good thing. I don't see what's gone too far.
One could argue that all our armies have been squatted. They no longer receive any official support for Warhammer Fantasy Battles.
Dogs of War were pretty neat! I liked the concept of adding mercenaries to armies and can remember going up against them once or twice. Good games, even if they ended horribly for my wolfboyz. If you don't like points as a concept, well, I guess that's your preference, but I never had an issue with squaring off against the Dogs of War. Did they get an updated list for Age of Sigmar?
I'd think it would be obvious losing the setting overall is more important than losing special characters. Not trying to be petty, just trying to give a counter-point to Matt's first point. Sorry if that offended you.
Now, as for the rest of the post...
Warhammer's basically always been pseudo-historical, at least in the background. Apart from the obvious real-world parallels - have you looked at any of the old, OLD WHFRP stuff? Lots of interesting little bits. In fact, I'd argue that recent developments moved it closer and closer to 'fantasy' gaming, what with the focus on giant monsters and magic and people turning into demigods because of said magic and all the other things that bothered me about End Times That was it's own unique flavor, and it's sad for me to see that be swapped out for some loosely inspired Norse mythology/Warcraft hybrid.
The fullness of the Old World never stopped me from writing background. It inspired it, actually. I'd poke around the map and see what looked interesting, then see if anything had already been written for it, and bam! Incorporate that. This character's a goblin warlord living in the Border Princes who picks on caravans going to Malko. That one's a Bretonnian knight who believes himself to be the rightful lord of the Hautmont. For me, it's always easier to build interesting background with a seed to work with. And, on that subject, I know I'm not alone. I was involved for years with a series of online campaigns that did just that - picked up on bits and pieces of fluff, then really fleshed them out, made them its own, and made Warhammer magic. In, by the way, the GM team's spare time. We hit Araby (twice!), Cathay and Nippon, Estalia, and Norsca...and each time, the GM team had an enormous resource pool to draw on. From maps to concept art to fan-based speculation...and that was a massive help, not an impediment. That argument just doesn't make sense to me.
It's a matter of ongoing development though.
I completely get the frustration that to all intents and purposes that whole background has been wiped.
However, look at what we have had for AoS so far, just a couple of months in;
We already have potted history from day one in the 'live' warzones, we have maps, timelines, even rules for realms, areas within those realms and locations within those areas.
That's not a bad rate for a setting 3 months old.
In fluff terms, AoS is still year one using the assault on the realm of fire as 'd-day'. There are references to what went before etc., but the focus of the writing is obviously very much focussed on expansion and 'current events', rather than history.
So I'd say that yes, the quantity of background is low, but the depth of that background thus far is quite significant.
(Avoided using the term quality because flamebait)
Or a fourth group. People that understand what the game is and don't like it for what it is. Sometimes people legitimately don't like something.
I get AOS. Read through the rules, the books, the scrolls. I do get it.
Or a fourth group. People that understand what the game is and don't like it for what it is. Sometimes people legitimately don't like something.
I get AOS. Read through the rules, the books, the scrolls. I do get it.
Yes, AoS is trying to put players out of their comfort zone. And that is why it's risky - people can't ignore this and must react, either by accepting it...or refusing it.
That is certainly a reason why the reactions are so extreme.
I'm wondering if AoS's success means a lot more to you than the game itself, MongooseMatt? I feel like it's a core concept that means a lot to you, as a game designer. If it can work, then that means you have the proof that it's feasable.
But then, if that's the case, don't you think that, by trying to make it work no matter what, you're not willing to see / trying to minimize the flaws such a concept may have?
It's true the way a game is designed dictates a lot of things for players; after all, they're the rules meant to play. So following them is natural to get a game working "as intended". The flaws of point systems are known and you described them quite well. But do you think a "no point system" is without flaws?
After all, a game system can always be exploited, no matter what. Rules may change, but players stay the same. And it is the players who exploit a game system, according to the rules. As long as their opponent agrees with their logic...having no point will not solve the problem. It will only move it.
Sure, AoS is fine when you have players agreeing with your standards (since the balance is now totally in the hands of players, it's only up to their standards). That is the truth for any other game.
Trouble is, if Humanity didn't manage to live without conflicts, it's certainly because we have some trouble to agree on the same things, even with strict rules. Remove these and you only have the people alone with their personal points of view.
That's why AoS is really risky and it may be the very good reason your playtesters asked for a point system; because they know it's difficult to agree with a complete stranger without an objective common ground. "Play with your collection" is quite a weak one to have balanced games, IMHO.
But then, if you only play in your gaming circle and don't bother to go outside of it, it's not really bothersome. Trouble is you may have difficulties to spread the game, especially when you play with another circle using totally different ways of playing. Lack of common ground is then a hindering.
But then, that's only my humble opinion on the matter, as a gamer of many games playing with a lot of different people.
I'm wondering if AoS's success means a lot more to you than the game itself, MongooseMatt? I feel like it's a core concept that means a lot to you, as a game designer. If it can work, then that means you have the proof that it's feasable.
But then, if that's the case, don't you think that, by trying to make it work no matter what, you're not willing to see / trying to minimize the flaws such a concept may have?
The only investment I have with AoS is in the models I have painted. That really is it.
Its overall success only matters to me in terms of being able to continue getting hold of new minis for it in the next 2, 5, or 10 years.
However, it would be cool if I had as many people to play with as with 40k...
Amazingly enough, some people do know themselves well enough to know in advance what kind of game they will or will not like...
So you haven't played it either?
I have indeed played it a couple of times to test the system for myself, though I admit I was already biased against it when I tried it, When I tried it out I found far too many things lacking. I just wanted to test it for myself to confirm a few things I was already suspecting (model interaction and model-to-model balance issues, mostly).
I do, however, understand that a player can simply look at the rules, fluff and/or overall aesthetics of any given game and understand that that game is not meant for them without even playing a match - it's happened to me before a couple of times (with Dreadfleet, for instance).
Personally, I find Mordheim to be a far superior skirmish game to AoS, so that will still be my go to game if I want to play a fantasy Skirmish game. I also find it ironic, to say the least, that it was made by the very same company that has made AoS, fits into the same "game type slot", but still manages to scratch all my itches, so to say.
Yes, AoS is trying to put players out of their comfort zone. And that is why it's risky - people can't ignore this and must react, either by accepting it...or refusing it.
...
The same could be said of people who love AoS because it's simple, and hate WHFB because it's too complex, etc.
I have indeed played it a couple of times to test the system for myself, though I admit I was already biased against it when I tried it, When I tried it out I found far too many things lacking. I just wanted to test it for myself to confirm a few things I was already suspecting (model interaction and model-to-model balance issues, mostly).
So... confirmation bias, then? People see what they want to see, and there's no easy defense for that, but don't go around pretending that your opinion is objective and informed when it is histrionic and preconceived.
I think the first post to this thread was about clearing up misconceptions about AoS precisely to combat confirmation bias. He is literally saying, "this is what you expect, but really, it's like this". It won't work, obviously, but good on him for trying to convince others by talking about the actual game itself, which he has played many times, rather than comparing it to different games, complaining about rules he's never tried, or dwelling in a biased theoretical bubble with no basis in reality.
I do, however, understand that a player can simply look at the rules, fluff and/or overall aesthetics of any given game and understand that that game is not meant for them without even playing a match - it's happened to me before a couple of times (with Dreadfleet, for instance).
Yes, this is possible. But that isn't what is going on here. Someone who simply realizes that a game isn't for them doesn't then spend months complaining about it. And MWHistorian has spent MONTHS complaining about this game, almost daily as near as I can tell. That is someone who obviously feels strongly about something, and I don't think it is fair to anybody, himself especially, to feel that strongly without having any practical experience on the subject. It's like a child who won't eat broccoli without tasting it, only in this situation, nobody is actually making him eat his broccoli. He's going over to other kids who are eating, and enjoying, their broccoli and going, "What the feth is wrong with you?"
Personally, I find Mordheim to be a far superior skirmish game to AoS, so that will still be my go to game if I want to play a fantasy Skirmish game. I also find it ironic, to say the least, that it was made by the very same company that has made AoS, fits into the same "game type slot", but still manages to scratch all my itches, so to say.
Age of Sigmar is not Mordheim. It's not WHFB either. It isn't Warmachine or 40k or Infinity or anything else. It is its own thing, going its own way, and yet people seem to expect it to apologize for it. I just don't understand the need to tell people that play and enjoy Age of Sigmar that you'd rather play something else, frequently and at length. You're like Comic Book Guy sitting there repeating "Worst. Game. Ever." as you watch other people play.
You really can't grasp that sometimes people don't like something.
I didn't like the Notebook.
I didn't like the Star Wars prequels either.
I have yet to watch a full episode of My Little Pony but I've seen enough to realize that I really don't like it.
Sqorgar, you have to accept that sometimes something you really like, isn't going to be liked by others.
I haven't played it because after reading the rules and all the other stuff, I didn't like the style of game, the aesthetics, the core concept and what little fluff there was. Not everything is for everybody.
It's called being an adult. This is a discussion board. You're going to get different opinions. Either accept that or go to an echo chamber elsewhere.
So... confirmation bias, then? People see what they want to see, and there's no easy defense for that, but don't go around pretending that your opinion is objective and informed when it is histrionic and preconceived.
I think the first post to this thread was about clearing up misconceptions about AoS precisely to combat confirmation bias. He is literally saying, "this is what you expect, but really, it's like this". It won't work, obviously, but good on him for trying to convince others by talking about the actual game itself, which he has played many times, rather than comparing it to different games, complaining about rules he's never tried, or dwelling in a biased theoretical bubble with no basis in reality.
So what if I tested the game with a confirmation bias? What does that mean? I came to 40k with the exact same fear, and yet here I am, 11 years later, with a healthy Dark Angels army and eagerly awaiting the day FW releases DA Contemptors, the Lion, Corswain, etc.... It is exactly because I ended up liking the 40k that I even bothered to try AoS to begin with.
Also this thread is made to clear misconceptions from a certain point of view - the OP is actually saying "this is what you expect, but really, it's like this because I see it like this." Which is all fine and dandy, until they clash with other people's opinions, who believe the misconceptions aren't misconceptions at all...
A good game needs no defense for it defends itself.
Yes, this is possible. But that isn't what is going on here. Someone who simply realizes that a game isn't for them doesn't then spend months complaining about it. And MWHistorian has spent MONTHS complaining about this game, almost daily as near as I can tell. That is someone who obviously feels strongly about something, and I don't think it is fair to anybody, himself especially, to feel that strongly without having any practical experience on the subject. It's like a child who won't eat broccoli without tasting it, only in this situation, nobody is actually making him eat his broccoli. He's going over to other kids who are eating, and enjoying, their broccoli and going, "What the feth is wrong with you?"
Sorry, but that is a horrible comparison to begin with and tbh MWHistorian is quite tame compared to some rabid/offensive defenders of AoS that label anyone that doesn't like AoS or raises criticism against the game as tools or morons. The thing is, for MWHistorian (just like with me) the grievance is past the game system. As I have stated before (I think it was in a different thread but I can't remember where) I could even try to stomach AoS as it is (even if I prefer Mordheim) if they hadn't destroyed the setting itself so utterly. But they did.
Call it being butthurt, call it being unable to cope with change or moving on, but for some of the WHFB crowd - me included -, decades of immersion and involvement in a setting do leave their mark, and GW's brand is no longer enough to make us follow like the mice in the Pan Piper of Hamelin - the sweet music isn't there anymore. And, like good plastic cracks addicts in withdrawal, we are angry and lashing out at the reason why FB was so utterly destroyed - AoS.
Now... is it unfair on the AoS crowd? I am sure it is, but in the end ALL of this is collateral damage - this is "just" fallout from GW's decision. I would like to ask you this - would you have any issues with MWHistorian or me say... about two years ago? I would like to think there would be none whatsoever. Do note I am not trying to excuse the people who dislike AoS or the to label AoS supporters as villains. Far from it, as we are responsible for every single action we take (unless completely fething wasted). I really want to point at the true source of this endless war that will clearly go into the M41.
Age of Sigmar is not Mordheim. It's not WHFB either. It isn't Warmachine or 40k or Infinity or anything else. It is its own thing, going its own way, and yet people seem to expect it to apologize for it. I just don't understand the need to tell people that play and enjoy Age of Sigmar that you'd rather play something else, frequently and at length. You're like Comic Book Guy sitting there repeating "Worst. Game. Ever." as you watch other people play.
I will keep saying it as I play other games, mind you, for many, many reasons.
But regardless and yet again - this is a public forum and people are free to post their opinions even if they are divergent. If you have any problem with what people who dislike AoS are saying, report us to the Mods. Feel free to do it now, to this very post, if you want - label it as Harassment. I leave myself to the Mods' mercy. Until then, this endless circle will continue.
Personally, I find Mordheim to be a far superior skirmish game to AoS, so that will still be my go to game if I want to play a fantasy Skirmish game. I also find it ironic, to say the least, that it was made by the very same company that has made AoS, fits into the same "game type slot", but still manages to scratch all my itches, so to say.
Age of Sigmar is not Mordheim. It's not WHFB either. It isn't Warmachine or 40k or Infinity or anything else. It is its own thing, going its own way, and yet people seem to expect it to apologize for it. I just don't understand the need to tell people that play and enjoy Age of Sigmar that you'd rather play something else, frequently and at length. You're like Comic Book Guy sitting there repeating "Worst. Game. Ever." as you watch other people play.
Just because AoS isn't other games doesn't mean people can't dislike it. Nor does it mean people can't draw comparisons to other games and voice their concerns about where it falls short. This is a discussion board. Things like movies, video games and so on get compared to other, similar products all the time. If AoS is as good as some think it is it should stand up on it's own without people telling the haters to get out.
After all, do you see this kind of behavior on the forums for Infinity, Malifaux and so on? Do they tell people who voice criticisms to leave because they are just mindless haters? No, of course not. So, why does AoS need such ardent defenders if it was so great?
I have actually looked through the Infinity forums and others, and what is different here is that as far as I can find, the people in those forums who express negative opinions still play the game.
That's the difference and frankly I can't understand why anyone would want to do what is regularly occurring here.
It's like going out of your way to go into an Apple Store to shout about how Apple is overpriced and rubbish and not as good as Samsung.
Just...why?
There is plenty of discussion on balancing (as an example), but it's for the most part by people who want to play. That's fine. Christ, Warseer is basically the home of the bitter gamers, but at least they still play the stuff they are whining abou-BOO! BOO AGE OF SIGMAR. BOO!
RoperPG wrote: I have actually looked through the Infinity forums and others, and what is different here is that as far as I can find, the people in those forums who express negative opinions still play the game.
That's the difference and frankly I can't understand why anyone would want to do what is regularly occurring here.
It's like going out of your way to go into an Apple Store to shout about how Apple is overpriced and rubbish and not as good as Samsung.
Just...why?
There is plenty of discussion on balancing (as an example), but it's for the most part by people who want to play. That's fine. Christ, Warseer is basically the home of the bitter gamers, but at least they still play the stuff they are whining abou-BOO! BOO AGE OF SIGMAR. BOO!
And yet when people that dislike AoS come to debate a thread specifically made to convince AoS dislikers that they are wrong... this is what they get?
I find the game totally uninspiring. If I buy a car I would like it to be well designed and work. Sigmar is like buying a kit car. Sure it could be nice if I spent the time to fully assemble and fix it. Driving the car as delivered is impossible. Playing the Sigmar rules as written is impossible. Dump your collection on the table and go for it? Are they aware some of us have been collecting for decades?
The game requires a massive amount of house rules/comp to get anything reasonable. Which is why it seems so lacking.
I do not see how this is a misconception. The real misconception might be deliberately ignoring the rules as written. It is a very flimsy system with holes big enough to drive a truck through. And the only solution is to use peer pressure to ensure a decent game. But who decides what is decent? Who is the one to determine what works and what does not work? Is that not the job of the professional designers? What are they getting paid for?
If some players have indeed polished this turd enough to make it shiny, I salute you. If players are willing to do that, who needs the design team? This marks the end of Games Workshops participation in the Warhammer hobby. They have moved in to the Sigmar hobby and this will become a blessing. Fans are going to pick up the standard dropped by the company and carry it onward.
At this point they are simply another company making models. Very, very expensive models that I have been too poor to purchase for many years now. GW might as well cut costs, fire the entire rules writing team, and simply post links on the GW web site to fan based rules systems.
We already have potted history from day one in the 'live' warzones, we have maps, timelines, even rules for realms, areas within those realms and locations within those areas.
In game terms, we've already had more location specific rules than WFB managed in 30 years.
This can't be true.
Yes, you've got rules for fighting in various realms, and fighting in them is going to be fundamentally different in a way that fighting in Nuln wouldn't be from fighting in Bordeleaux, but I feel like you're not quite aware of the number of scenarios and rules Warhammer has had over the years. Off the top of my head, Warhammer has given us rules for:
- Fighting in Lustria
- Fighting in the Chaos Wastes
- Campaigning in Bretonnia and the Border Princes, complete with specific scenarios for certain areas (Malko, the ruined elven tower, and so forth)
- The Winter of Woe, ending with a massive greenskin horde assaulting the Oak of Ages
- Grom's war against the Empire, complete with the siege of Nuln
- Tunnel fighting
- Adding tunnel fighting to campaigns (twice, I believe!)
- Fighting in ash wastes (perfect for the Dark Lands!)
- Fighting in ice storms and winter conditions (Kislev, Troll Country, Naggaroth...)
- Fighting in deserts (Khemri and Araby)
- The destruction of Bugman's Brewery
- All the skirmish scenarios, some of which got extremely specific (this is how a snotling raid on a mushroom farmer is fought!)
- Conquering a specific mystery island somewhere in the vicinity of Lustria (involving a GM)
- All the specific scenarios from Albion and Storm of Chaos
And that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure people with an extensive collection of elderly White Dwarf magazines could add more to it.
And I would argue that a setting focused on 'current events' with only little asides as to the past (such as glossing over the ruined civilizations that the factions are fighting on top of...) doesn't exactly have a ton of depth. It could theoretically still be good, but I wouldn't call it deep.
Nope, that's not going to happen. The end result is a fractured system that is useless for any sort of pick-up gaming, as you're never going to be able to depend on a prospective opponent playing the same rules as you.
Great post.
This point above I find particularly important. Since I don't get much time to actually play I spend a lot of time on the forums looking over and discussing lists and strategies.
The lack of limits makes "should I take this or this" irrelevant since you can take both. Same type of thing for "is this better than this?".
Alternatively if players are using limits there are now so many different rule sets and comps that it makes these types of discussions difficult to the point of irrelevance.
If I'm used to playing Azyr comp and people are discussing a 30 wound list, I'd have to be familiar with all the armies and the # of wounds on each model, plus the OP's character and monster limits. Or if someone else chimes in, but they play with model count limits, and not wound counts.
Or I've seen this a lot - someone poses a problem and the answer is the outnumbering sudden death rules, but then the OP says they don't use those.
How are we to know what rules are being used to have an informed discussion? Even if the poster lays out all the rules they use up front many of the comps and limit systems change the game so drastically that experience isn't cross compatible.
MWHistorian wrote:I haven't played it because after reading the rules and all the other stuff, I didn't like the style of game, the aesthetics, the core concept and what little fluff there was. Not everything is for everybody.
That's perfectly fine. So why are you here, month after month, complaining about it? Literally no one in this forum does not already know your opinion on Age of Sigmar and your contributions to each thread rarely amount to more than "I don't like thing" these days. What do YOU get out of such behavior?
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:The thing is, for MWHistorian (just like with me) the grievance is past the game system. As I have stated before (I think it was in a different thread but I can't remember where) I could even try to stomach AoS as it is (even if I prefer Mordheim) if they hadn't destroyed the setting itself so utterly. But they did.
So you admit that you are biased as hell and that your grievances have little to do with the game itself. So why continue to bash the game, especially given that you've admitted that you haven't given the game a fair shake and that you are really angry at something else? Does that sound like a well adjusted person to you?
Call it being butthurt, call it being unable to cope with change or moving on, but for some of the WHFB crowd - me included -, decades of immersion and involvement in a setting do leave their mark, and GW's brand is no longer enough to make us follow like the mice in the Pan Piper of Hamelin - the sweet music isn't there anymore. And, like good plastic cracks addicts in withdrawal, we are angry and lashing out at the reason why FB was so utterly destroyed - AoS.
But AoS isn't the reason WHFB was destroyed. It's more like the phoenix that rose from WHFB's ashes. Regardless of what they think about AoS, pretty much everybody agrees that WHFB was dying or dead long before it was killed. Even then, here's the world's tiniest violin playing for you. Find whatever closure you need to move on, then do it. Personally, I think giving AoS a fair chance and potentially coming to enjoy it is the best closure you'll ever get.
Now... is it unfair on the AoS crowd? I am sure it is, but in the end ALL of this is collateral damage - this is "just" fallout from GW's decision. I would like to ask you this - would you have any issues with MWHistorian or me say... about two years ago?
I don't have a problem with either of you now. The reason why MWHistorian isn't on my ignore list, but Swastakowey is, is because he can (occasionally) contribute to a discussion. It seems to be happening less and less as the same tired arguments are repeated over and over again. I think we are ALL tired of this happening, but neither side seems to be walking away. My end game is to be able to talk about a miniatures game that I actually enjoy among others who share my passion (but not always my opinions) on a forum dedicated to discussions about the game - and seeing how rare this is for AoS and the quality of some of the posters here, it seems like Dakka is a better place to aim for it than most. What's your end game?
But regardless and yet again - this is a public forum and people are free to post their opinions even if they are divergent. If you have any problem with what people who dislike AoS are saying, report us to the Mods. Feel free to do it now, to this very post, if you want - label it as Harassment. I leave myself to the Mods' mercy. Until then, this endless circle will continue.
With all due respect, whenever you resort to the "it's a free country and if you don't like it, tell on me" defense, you've pretty much admitted you are trolling. There's this fine line that trolls walk that skirts the edge of bannable, but never quite crosses it, but becomes rather obvious when they basically dare you to force them to shut up. That's the mark of someone who knows they are unwanted.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kenofyork wrote: I find the game totally uninspiring. If I buy a car I would like it to be well designed and work. Sigmar is like buying a kit car. Sure it could be nice if I spent the time to fully assemble and fix it. Driving the car as delivered is impossible. Playing the Sigmar rules as written is impossible. Dump your collection on the table and go for it? Are they aware some of us have been collecting for decades?
Age of Sigmar, and indeed all miniature games, are hobbies. You don't get assembled and painted figures. You get pieces and you glue together. You can even get upgrade kits or alternate weapons to customize your models. You then get to paint them in any manner of your choosing. You have to build your own tables and place your own terrain. AoS just applies this philosophy to the game rules as well.
And I would argue that a setting focused on 'current events' with only little asides as to the past (such as glossing over the ruined civilizations that the factions are fighting on top of...) doesn't exactly have a ton of depth. It could theoretically still be good, but I wouldn't call it deep.
WFB was always human-centric in how it framed things. AoS has a certain mythological feel tonit for me, scattered peoples remembering the golden age, the world that was when gods walked amongst men, the world tree of realms.
I don't really know how to explain it, but it strikes a chord for me.
And I would argue that a setting focused on 'current events' with only little asides as to the past (such as glossing over the ruined civilizations that the factions are fighting on top of...) doesn't exactly have a ton of depth. It could theoretically still be good, but I wouldn't call it deep.
WFB was always human-centric in how it framed things. AoS has a certain mythological feel tonit for me, scattered peoples remembering the golden age, the world that was when gods walked amongst men, the world tree of realms.
I don't really know how to explain it, but it strikes a chord for me.
I'd recommend that you try and get hold of a copy of the General's Compendium, then, seeing as that's where a good chunk of those came from! Even if you don't play Warhammer any more, maybe you can adapt out some of the rules to be used in Age of Sigmar. It's a wonderful toolbox-type book, and I can see the ash wastes/Chaos Wastes special rules really working for the game.
And if the feel of the game works for you, then it works for you. I can certainly see the appeal of that kind of setting, and maybe I'd even be interested in it if it didn't replace the Old World and the focus was on the remnants of the lost civilizations rather than the deathless warrior gods battling among them. That strikes a chord for me. Your people have been starving and on the run, telling tales of lost glory, perhaps looting the ruins of dead cities for equipment to survive -
Why the frak didn't they just reskin Mordheim come on it would have been PERFECT -
"I'm not booing your gaming group, I'm booing the company. No one even knows what a 'Seraphon' is."
Sqorgar wrote: So you admit that you are biased as hell and that your grievances have little to do with the game itself. So why continue to bash the game, especially given that you've admitted that you haven't given the game a fair shake and that you are really angry at something else? Does that sound like a well adjusted person to you?
Holy gak. That's... just wow.
That's really all I have to say. And considering just that, this little interchange is over.
I'd recommend that you try and get hold of a copy of the General's Compendium, then, seeing as that's where a good chunk of those came from! Even if you don't play Warhammer any more, maybe you can adapt out some of the rules to be used in Age of Sigmar. It's a wonderful toolbox-type book, and I can see the ash wastes/Chaos Wastes special rules really working for the game.
And what is utterly embarrassing here is the fact I'm 80% sure my copy of that book is in a box back in my folks' loft.
Wow, the memory really is the first thing to go...
"So why are you here, month after month, complaining about it? Literally no one in this forum does not already know your opinion on Age of Sigmar and your contributions to each thread rarely amount to more than "I don't like thing" these days. What do YOU get out of such behavior? "
Would like to know this as well. The "I have a right to complain, be an adult" response doesn't explain why you would complain using the exact same arguments, month after month, about a game you hate. We know you can, because moderation allows it here. Some even go so far as to mock those of us who enjoy the game because we have a thread where we try to discuss something we enjoy with others who enjoy it. It's completely absurd. But WHY? It benefits literally no one, least of all yourself. I have been on forums where most of my posts where complaints and angry arguments. All it did was make me angrier. In the end I stopped visiting those forums because I realized I was doing myself a disservice.
Lithlandis admitted that he is "angry and lashing out". Is that the basis of good discussion? I think most people would say no, there's no point and you need to move on.
Mymearan wrote: "So why are you here, month after month, complaining about it? Literally no one in this forum does not already know your opinion on Age of Sigmar and your contributions to each thread rarely amount to more than "I don't like thing" these days. What do YOU get out of such behavior? "
Would like to know this as well. The "I have a right to complain, be an adult" response doesn't explain why you would complain using the exact same arguments, month after month, about a game you hate. We know you can, because moderation allows it here. But WHY? It benefits literally no one, least of all yourself. I have been on forums where most of my posts where complaints and angry arguments. All it did was make me angrier. In the end I stopped visiting those forums because I realized I was doing myself a disservice.
Lithlandis admitted that he is "angry and lashing out". Is that the basis of good discussion? I think most people would say no, there's no point and you need to move on.
And constantly insulting and degrading those who don't share your opinion is?
Sqorgar wrote: But AoS isn't the reason WHFB was destroyed. It's more like the phoenix that rose from WHFB's ashes. Regardless of what they think about AoS, pretty much everybody agrees that WHFB was dying or dead long before it was killed. Even then, here's the world's tiniest violin playing for you. Find whatever closure you need to move on, then do it. Personally, I think giving AoS a fair chance and potentially coming to enjoy it is the best closure you'll ever get.
It was injured, for sure, but could have been saved. Instead they shoved it off the fourth floor window and all their customers with it. Most people are aiming for closure by playing other games.
WFB was always human-centric in how it framed things. AoS has a certain mythological feel tonit for me, scattered peoples remembering the golden age, the world that was when gods walked amongst men, the world tree of realms.
I don't really know how to explain it, but it strikes a chord for me.
And its very hard to relate to for many people. Do sigmarines eat or talk? Are they just statues? When a sigmarine dies, does anyone really care?
Mymearan wrote: "So why are you here, month after month, complaining about it? Literally no one in this forum does not already know your opinion on Age of Sigmar and your contributions to each thread rarely amount to more than "I don't like thing" these days. What do YOU get out of such behavior? "
Would like to know this as well. The "I have a right to complain, be an adult" response doesn't explain why you would complain using the exact same arguments, month after month, about a game you hate. We know you can, because moderation allows it here. But WHY? It benefits literally no one, least of all yourself. I have been on forums where most of my posts where complaints and angry arguments. All it did was make me angrier. In the end I stopped visiting those forums because I realized I was doing myself a disservice.
Lithlandis admitted that he is "angry and lashing out". Is that the basis of good discussion? I think most people would say no, there's no point and you need to move on.
And constantly insulting and degrading those who don't share your opinion is?
Spot on Mymearan. Spot on.
Of course not, where did I say that? And why are you avoiding my question? You only commented on the very last sentence in my post.
Mymearan wrote: "So why are you here, month after month, complaining about it? Literally no one in this forum does not already know your opinion on Age of Sigmar and your contributions to each thread rarely amount to more than "I don't like thing" these days. What do YOU get out of such behavior? "
Would like to know this as well. The "I have a right to complain, be an adult" response doesn't explain why you would complain using the exact same arguments, month after month, about a game you hate. We know you can, because moderation allows it here. But WHY? It benefits literally no one, least of all yourself. I have been on forums where most of my posts where complaints and angry arguments. All it did was make me angrier. In the end I stopped visiting those forums because I realized I was doing myself a disservice.
Lithlandis admitted that he is "angry and lashing out". Is that the basis of good discussion? I think most people would say no, there's no point and you need to move on.
And constantly insulting and degrading those who don't share your opinion is?
Spot on Mymearan. Spot on.
Of course not, where did I say that? And why are you avoiding my question? You only commented on the very last sentence in my post.
The funny thing is that, if you read all the posts made by me about AoS, in the couple of threads since I am here (not for months and months, like someone else says) you'll see I will consistently point out what I find to be flaws in the game, pretty much like many others that share the same opinion as I do. There is rarely any anger from us, even though there should be. The anger is not directed at the players who like AoS - as I mentioned previously, I am willing to believe to believe that tw years ago I wouldn't have been insulted... but hey maybe I'm being overly optimistic. It's directed at this sorry little excuse of a game that rose "like a phoenix" (pfft) after breaking a playerbase apart.
We have calmly, collectedly pointed flaws or weaknesses in:
- rules;
- fluff;
- overall aesthetics.
We have also pointed out flaws in the basis for the game's marketing strategies, and the very reason why it came to be. Heck, we have even - many times over - pointed out and suggested what could've been done right regarding AoS, what would have made the game the breath of fresh air that would not have split a player base in half.
I am here to talk and discuss wargames (as you might notice I don't post in the AoS forums alone).
What I am NOT here to do is to call people who don't share my opinion tools, trolls, spammers, or pretty much flying rodent gak insane. Get my drift?
Mymearan wrote: "So why are you here, month after month, complaining about it? Literally no one in this forum does not already know your opinion on Age of Sigmar and your contributions to each thread rarely amount to more than "I don't like thing" these days. What do YOU get out of such behavior? "
Would like to know this as well. The "I have a right to complain, be an adult" response doesn't explain why you would complain using the exact same arguments, month after month, about a game you hate. We know you can, because moderation allows it here. Some even go so far as to mock those of us who enjoy the game because we have a thread where we try to discuss something we enjoy with others who enjoy it. It's completely absurd. But WHY? It benefits literally no one, least of all yourself. I have been on forums where most of my posts where complaints and angry arguments. All it did was make me angrier. In the end I stopped visiting those forums because I realized I was doing myself a disservice.
Lithlandis admitted that he is "angry and lashing out". Is that the basis of good discussion? I think most people would say no, there's no point and you need to move on.
The answer to that is a response to the thread title. MattMongoose put forth the idea that there was a list of misconceptions around AoS and that possibly players hadn't seen it from a different point of view or they didn't understand some things. The "negative" responses has been from players who feel they did take these ideas into mind and don't agree with them, or did understand the game and came to different conclusions. I play, I have grave misgivings about the game, and I enjoy discussions about these problems I see. I do look for other points of view and solutions to some of these problems.
It was injured, for sure, but could have been saved. Instead they shoved it off the fourth floor window and all their customers with it. Most people are aiming for closure by playing other games.
First, I don't think WHFB could be saved. I think that it had its fans, but I think it would've been an uphill battle gaining new ones. It's kind of like MMOs. Over time, they hemorrhage players. Every expansion pack brings back new players, but less and less each time. After a while, the number of players who come back are less than the number of players who leave, and the game (as a service) enters the downward spiral where releases and updates are fewer, staff are moved to other projects, and you basically have a skeleton crew trying to keep what few players still there happy. Eventually, they just close the servers. Once a MMO reaches "maintenance mode", it is very rare for it to ever bounce back and become popular.
Or, to put it in terms of WHFB, they could maintain the game with the players that remained (many of which were older than 40) but they could not grow it again without a major investment - and even then, it would likely only buy a few more years before it went into maintenance mode again. So they had two options. They could launch a sequel, which could allow them to appeal to new players and keep the old players around (which they did, and it didn't work), or they could move outside of their tightly controlled distribution system to reach a wider audience, which wouldn't work because of the hobby aspect. If they wanted to gain new players, they would need to release cheaper figures in places like Barnes and Nobles that were probably pre-assembled and pre-painted (meaning they'd compete against X-Wing Miniatures, which would also anger FFG who does all of GW's board games).
Frankly, launching a sequel to WHFB was a good idea because it did draw new blood (like me) who preferred skirmish systems and were drawn to the idea of a new miniatures game with heavy support, but which didn't have 30 years of baggage with it. Starting a new universe where they could slowly reintroduce older characters and races kept me from being overwhelmed - I look at 40k, and while I love some of the models and would love to play it, I have absolutely NO idea how to start the game. I thought the rumored Horus Heresy starter set would be a good chance to jump in, but now the rumors are saying that it is even more complicated than 40k and presumably would be more difficult to get outside of the Forge World online store.
Anyway, I'm saying WHFB probably couldn't have been saved. It was in maintenance mode, and to a company that answers to investors, the ability to get out of it quickly and cheaply was probably impossible. So they chose the option which they thought (mistakenly, I guess) would gain new players while keeping the old ones invested. All your models work in the new game. They assumed that it was the models the players were attached to rather than the rules - which was probably a fair assumption at the time.
And second, playing another game isn't closure. It's a rebound. It's like dating a girl who looks like your ex-girlfriend.
Sqorgar wrote: So they had two options. They could launch a sequel, which could allow them to appeal to new players and keep the old players around (which they did, and it didn't work), or they could move outside of their tightly controlled distribution system to reach a wider audience, which wouldn't work because of the hobby aspect. If they wanted to gain new players, they would need to release cheaper figures in places like Barnes and Nobles that were probably pre-assembled and pre-painted (meaning they'd compete against X-Wing Miniatures, which would also anger FFG who does all of GW's board games).
Or they could make the game more affordable, offer a skirmish mode as introduction to the real game, and offer actual support for the game.
Frankly, launching a sequel to WHFB was a good idea because it did draw new blood (like me) who preferred skirmish systems and were drawn to the idea of a new miniatures game with heavy support, but which didn't have 30 years of baggage with it.
And get rid of the existing fanbase who did like the '30 years of baggage' as well as the way the game was played.
And second, playing another game isn't closure. It's a rebound. It's like dating a girl who looks like your ex-girlfriend.
Its like dating a girl who might look like your ex-girlfriend, but doesn't throw you down the stairs.
Or they could make the game more affordable, offer a skirmish mode as introduction to the real game, and offer actual support for the game.
Making the game affordable and better support would make existing players happy - it wouldn't bring in new players. The miniature games market is relatively small, and absolutely dominated by Games Workshop. It's fair to say that anybody who plays miniature games already knows what WHFB is and if they aren't playing it, made the decision to not play it. Since 40k is doing well, price is obviously not the objection. Even then, GW does have stuff like Island of Blood which has small skirmishes for a (more) reasonable price, but my guess is that it wasn't selling as well as Dark Vengeance or it wasn't causing players to further invest after the starter box.
And get rid of the existing fanbase who did like the '30 years of baggage' as well as the way the game was played.
But they didn't get rid of the baggage. It's all there and the way the AoS universe is set up, almost all of it could potentially come back at some point. It's just not relevant to the initial release of the game.
For instance, it appears that AoS will get another release window in December, which some people are saying will be two new factions for Order and Chaos. If they introduce the Dwarves, for example, it will undoubtedly come with the backstory of what happened between End Times and Age of Sigmar. And then, part of the Old World mythology will be connected with the AoS mythology, bridging the two. If it feels like everything from the Old World is gone, it's only because they are taking their time introducing the new factions and explaining where they went.
To someone like me, not having the backstory for the Dwarves initially allows me to focus on the world and main conflict of the AoS time period. Introducing each race slowly gives me time to acclimate to their own individual heroes, stories, and purpose without overwhelming me with 30 years of history all at once. And I get that it must seem frustrating to feel like you've lose that universe - but you haven't. Just learn a little patience and at least make it to the next release window and see what happens.
Public warning, folks: if you can't discuss your points without either ascribing motives to those with differing opinions, or actively calling them names, I strongly suggest you refrain from posting.
Or they could make the game more affordable, offer a skirmish mode as introduction to the real game, and offer actual support for the game.
Making the game affordable and better support would make existing players happy - it wouldn't bring in new players. The miniature games market is relatively small, and absolutely dominated by Games Workshop. It's fair to say that anybody who plays miniature games already knows what WHFB is and if they aren't playing it, made the decision to not play it.
While GW is still the largest player, they are not the dominating force they once were. Likewise, I've known multiple people that thought about getting into Fantasy that didn't because of the cost, and the cost was definitely a factor in myself dropping out of Fantasy play. If people look at a game and realize it's going to be a 4 digit investment to get a 2500pt (standard play level) army, that's going to shut that down real quick.
Since 40k is doing well, price is obviously not the objection.
We don't know if 40k is doing "well", it's just bigger. GW's overall revenues have been declining for over a decade and to assume that 40k is not taking hits would be unrealistic. 40k armies also tend to be a bit lighter on the wallet than Fantasy armies were, and with bigger, easier to paint models (like tanks), and could be played much more fluidly at 500 or 1000pts than Fantasy did at say 1000 or 1500pts (and a 500pt game of Fantasy basically didn't exist). 40k is far easier to "build up to" than Fantasy was.
Even then, GW does have stuff like Island of Blood which has small skirmishes for a (more) reasonable price, but my guess is that it wasn't selling as well as Dark Vengeance or it wasn't causing players to further invest after the starter box.
Because it only had two factions and felt like a portion of an army rather than a complete force. Nobody I knew ever bought it (or Dark Vengeance) to play just with those sets, it was always to get a grip of models for a relatively cheap price if you wanted to play those specific factions. Nobody ever actually played games using just those models.
Sqorgar wrote: Making the game affordable and better support would make existing players happy - it wouldn't bring in new players.
That's uh, yeah, citation needed. Cost was a HUGE factor in a lot of people not playing the game.
Since 40k is doing well, price is obviously not the objection
Lower volume of sales every year for years definitely doesn't show that.
But they didn't get rid of the baggage. It's all there and the way the AoS universe is set up, almost all of it could potentially come back at some point. It's just not relevant to the initial release of the game.
I mean, I don't really see Beastmen coming out of the Drakwald any time soon. They recreated everything so they can copyright every single piece of it. Chapterhouse touched a nerve for sure.
Kilkrazy wrote:Please report comments that break the site rules.
Alpharius wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote: @KK - Why? It's not like anything comes of it. Swasty is still constantly stirring the pot, for example.
Aside from the fact that many posts in this thread are derailing...this thread...
Most times you will not know if something happened in terms of Moderation as most Moderation, outside of in thread warning and such, is conducted in private.
So again, if you see a post that breaks the rules of the site - report it.
I GUARANTEE that EVERY one gets looked at by a Moderator.
You say that, but it sure looks like nothing happens. I flag comments all the time and no action is taken. Take my 50-50 win/lose thread, there is an inflammatory and off topic post by Davidian that I flagged up.
Kilkrazy wrote:Please report comments that break the site rules.
Alpharius wrote:
JohnHwangDD wrote: @KK - Why? It's not like anything comes of it. Swasty is still constantly stirring the pot, for example.
Aside from the fact that many posts in this thread are derailing...this thread...
Most times you will not know if something happened in terms of Moderation as most Moderation, outside of in thread warning and such, is conducted in private.
So again, if you see a post that breaks the rules of the site - report it.
I GUARANTEE that EVERY one gets looked at by a Moderator.
You say that, but it sure looks like nothing happens. I flag comments all the time and no action is taken. Take my 50-50 win/lose thread, there is an inflammatory and off topic post by Davidian that I flagged up.
Nothing happened.
How do you know? When was their last post? Maybe they've taken an "involuntary holiday" from Dakka for all you know.
Bottle wrote: , but as most mods place warning lines inside posts that break the rules,...
That's not actually the case. Some of us post in thread, some don't. Even for those of us who do, it often depends on the situation, as does whether or not we edit or remove the offending post.
All of which is completely off-topic for this thread. If anyone has further issues to bring up regarding moderation, please PM one of the moderators rather than further de-railing this thread.
Emphasis on this little bit of the Citadel Design Seminar::
"We start when a new model is presented to Design Team, and we’re told to come up with some rules and background for it”. This sounds exaggerated, like someone from the miniatures side of the building produces a KV128 Stormsurge (built and painted to ‘Eavy Metal standard) and says “We made this, make rules and background so we can sell it!” – but this is literally the example we were given! I know!"
Fethin' top notch rule design process, ain't it?
Wow, that's one of the most depressing reads ever. I am having lots of fun with AoS, but I lament the lose of heart in White Dwarf as much as anyone and this event being described as a living White Dwarf sounds like hell.
At least the Age of Sigmar events at Warhammer World seem to have been fun so far, as I plan to go to some.
Voicing opinions isn't against forum rules and I dont have to explain my motivations to you.
End of that conversation.
Let's get back on track before people that dont like differing opinions close yet another thread.
A lack of understanding isn't the reason I don't like the game. I haven't played it but nothing about the game makes me want to try. Its the game's job to be interesting enough to buy into. And since no one around my area plays it. I cant even get a demo.
It's fair to say that anybody who plays miniature games already knows what WHFB is and if they aren't playing it, made the decision to not play it. Since 40k is doing well, price is obviously not the objection.
Shrinking year on year volume tells a different story for 40k though. If people aren't playing wfb, there is a reason. Maybe it's the price? The massive buy in to a reasonable level-of-play? That gw pushed the gsme where it's fans didnt want it it go? Price is a big thing for a lot of people, especially if it's in addition to an already expensive game...
Even then, GW does have stuff like Island of Blood which has small skirmishes for a (more) reasonable price, but my guess is that it wasn't selling as well as Dark Vengeance or it wasn't causing players to further invest after the starter box.
Wfb isn't a 'small skirmish game' though. The buy in was all front loaded and user unfriendly as well. There not what a lot of people wanted out of it.Telling people 'so what if you like game x, gw produces different game y instead, and you should be happy for it' doesn't get you many gamer points....
As to why it wasn't selling - well, there are other reasons...
And get rid of the existing fanbase who did like the '30 years of baggage' as well as the way the game was played.
But they didn't get rid of the baggage. It's all there and the way the AoS universe is set up, almost all of it could potentially come back at some point. It's just not relevant to the initial release of the game.
So they didn't nuke the old world??
You are someone who never grew up with wfb. You've not lost what theyve lost. It's easy for you to so casually dismiss people's genuine issues, and you are quite wrong for doing it. As for baggage - Mate, they chucked the baby out with the bath water in favour of a thing that, while I can see value in, is something so many fsns just see as an insult. Keeping the fans on board is a clever move. It generates a thing called 'goodwill'. In a 'word of mouth' based hobby, this is key to future success. You know - responding to people's concerns and issues, Rather than nuke and reset from zero.
For instance, it appears that AoS will get another release window in December, which some people are saying will be two new factions for Order and Chaos. If they introduce the Dwarves, for example, it will undoubtedly come with the backstory of what happened between End Times and Age of Sigmar. And then, part of the Old World mythology will be connected with the AoS mythology, bridging the two. If it feels like everything from the Old World is gone, it's only because they are taking their time introducing the new factions and explaining where they went.
Two new factions, to be fair. After hoe long? Almost a year, right? And limited fluff. WMH came out with four factions from day1, and this was on top of solid fluff and an already impressive rpg roster. Basic fluff for two factions with an undeveloped IP does not compare. Especially for a company on the scale of gw, and especially on A company of the scale of gw with a focus on 'the narrative'.
If it feels like everything from the old world is gone, maybe it's because they nuked the old world and people are actually annoyed about it?
To someone like me, not having the backstory for the Dwarves initially allows me to focus on the world and main conflict of the AoS time period. Introducing each race slowly gives me time to acclimate to their own individual heroes, stories, and purpose without overwhelming me with 30 years of history all at once. And I get that it must seem frustrating to feel like you've lose that universe - but you haven't. Just learn a little patience and at least make it to the next release window and see what happens.
But yes, yes they have. And for a lot of people, this coupled with overpriced rules books and source books is frankly, more than thry can bear. Put yourself in their shoes. You didn't have to lose the old world. Imagine if you did. I'm personally ok with more limited fluff for s starting game, it Jesus Christ, if you are talking about four factions of numerous races that have survived Armageddon from the old world, I want to read about the four factions and numerous, not just sigmarines and khorne bloody berserkers. I don't want to have to wait years for the faction I peotentially spent years collecting to make a bloody cameo.
MongooseMatt wrote: Age of Sigmar is failing No one (except a few at GWHQ) knows anything about how the game has been selling. One store, or even a bunch of Internet forums, do not a firm basis make for this conclusion. The first clue we will get will be next year in GW’s financial reports, and we may not really know for 2-3 years.
It really is okay to wait and reserve judgement for later. There is no requirement to make a decision on this immediately!
It's certainly OK to reserve judgement - but this is obviously not true, at least on local / regional levels. Stores know whether they're selling copies or not (and many store owners on Dakka have mentioned that they are NOT). Distributors also know. Sure, GW sells directly - but in the US, that is not the bulk of the market, and with one-man stores with less capacity, even their own recruiting is not as high here.
I do have a friend that just moved to the UK and got pulled into a GW shop and given a demo or all things Warhammer (40k and AoS), but in the US it's just not the primary driver anymore. So, lots of people will have a very good idea of how AoS is selling in their areas before GW's official reports - and if anything, their official reports will do all they can to obscure poor performance, so a better way to determine how it is doing would be to take data from several sources... not just the first party source with a vested interest in it succeeding.
I am personally part of the group that wanted AoS to be absolutely awesome and were eagerly awaiting it, unfortunately when we saw it, at first thought it was a joke, GW is just kidding. Other than that I think the sigmarines are completely ridiculous, Sigmar himself is IMO extremely uninteresting, even in his own trilogy (which I thought was great in spite of Sigmar) This was a massive letdown. We (me and my group who were looking forward to it) were hoping for something simpler than fantasy (but more so than chutes and ladders) but could get big fights or skirmishes. IF not a completely new setting with new chars and story, then at least something more interesting. I play AoS when I can, but it is extremely unpopular around here, 1 store..thats it, in a major metro area, and its a GW (go figure) Its not terrible, its not very good either, and when you consider the talent pool GW has to draw from its almost insulting that this is what they came up with. I am hoping as it ages, GW will do to it what they do to all their games, make another edition. Take it seriously this time and flesh this thing out. I dont expect prices to lower. but they can do better there too. The competition is not sitting back, kickstarter is churning out high quality competition and the more established companies are rising as well. GW could easily be the next FASA, WHITE WOLF, or TSR if its not careful.
Why not? Considering it was the start up price and shoddy rules that drove so many away...
Miniatures are an expensive hobby, especially when starting out. Buying a starter box, at the very minimum, you need to get the polystyrene glue and clippers/hobby knife (or both, ideally). It took me about 9 hours to put together my Age of Sigmar box of 48 models. That's before you can even play the game. If you want to paint your figures (and unless you are a Warmachine player, you probably do), that's going to be about $100 in paints and tools, and possibly a hundred hours or more or painting.
Basically, before you've ever bought a second box of figures, you've had to decide whether it is worth the time and money investment to commit fully to the hobby. So I'm guessing that the starter boxes for WHFB don't do a real great job of selling the hobby to a new player. I don't think many of the starter boxes do, actually, so it is more likely that a new mini player is coming in with an existing peer group to show them how to play/give hobby tips.
However, it is considerably easier to poach players of other miniature games, as they don't have that learning curve and likely already have many of the tools and skills required. I went to AoS from Warmachine pretty easily, as I only needed the plastic glue due to the change in material of the miniatures (though I did end up getting some Citadel paints - that Retributor gold is amazing). So, it could be said that the WHFB starter set, if it managed to get other mini game players interested, didn't keep their interest.
Long story short (too late), the price is the last thing a new player (or old player) really looks at when deciding to play a new game. I think GW knows this too, which explains their prices for AoS units.
Shrinking year on year volume tells a different story for 40k though. If people aren't playing wfb, there is a reason. Maybe it's the price? The massive buy in to a reasonable level-of-play? That gw pushed the gsme where it's fans didnt want it it go? Price is a big thing for a lot of people, especially if it's in addition to an already expensive game...
GW is expensive. I don't think anybody could argue otherwise. And with the price of petroleum products going up, one day, plastic miniatures may be more expensive than metal ones. WHFB, which is best played with hundreds of models, isn't cost effective for the players... or GW. With the rising cost per figure, it's very likely that the prospect of a game with many hundreds of models as its base line would become too expensive to maintain or sell to players. So, GW would have to reduce the number of figures needed for the game in order to reduce the price... which they did with Age of Sigmar.
You are someone who never grew up with wfb. You've not lost what theyve lost. It's easy for you to so casually dismiss people's genuine issues, and you are quite wrong for doing it. As for baggage - Mate, they chucked the baby out with the bath water in favour of a thing that, while I can see value in, is something so many fsns just see as an insult. Keeping the fans on board is a clever move. It generates a thing called 'goodwill'. In a 'word of mouth' based hobby, this is key to future success. You know - responding to people's concerns and issues, Rather than nuke and reset from zero.
I didn't grow up with WHFB, but I did grow up with other things that have gone through similar things. For instance, I was a launch day fan of Star Wars Galaxies and watched as it went through a combat upgrade and then the dreaded "New Game Experience", before ultimately getting gak canned in favor of the disaster that was Old Republic. I also played Dust Tactics before it was sold to Battlefront who has mismanaged it from here to eternity. I watched BattleLore die a slow, meandering death over years due to no support, only to be reborn in a second edition that took away a lot of what I liked about the first edition. And don't even get me started on video games... I was a Shenmue fan...
So, I've been there and gone through it... but I've also come out the other side and I've realized that change is inevitable. Nothing lasts forever. So it is better to appreciate what you have than spend you life in bitter resentment over something you never had any control of in the first place.
Two new factions, to be fair. After hoe long? Almost a year, right? And limited fluff. WMH came out with four factions from day1, and this was on top of solid fluff and an already impressive rpg roster. Basic fluff for two factions with an undeveloped IP does not compare. Especially for a company on the scale of gw, and especially on A company of the scale of gw with a focus on 'the narrative'.
I was there with Warmachine on day 1 and yes, there were four factions. With about 4 models each. It took them a while to get up to speed, and early on, there was a lack of releases. Eventually, they managed to fill out the first book with about a dozen models for each faction - of which, all the light and heavy warjacks were variations on the same body with different arms. It had solid fluff because the Warmachine setting was worked on as a D&D 3.5 module for a DECADE before they started the miniature game. Right now, Warmachine is trying to figure out the whole plastic model thing (and not doing so great at it, so their quality has taken a huge hit).
So, I don't think you can really compare the two. AoS had two factions with dozens of models, two campaign guides, three battletomes, six terrain elements, and five or six novels within the first two or three months of release. Granted, GW isn't a fledgling company like PP was at the time, but they have delivered plenty. You may not like what they've delivered, but the one thing you can't say is that Age of Sigmar is lacking in releases. Hell, I'm still catching up on the first stuff. Age of Sigmar came out in July and six months later, we're getting another major release window.
But yes, yes they have. And for a lot of people, this coupled with overpriced rules books and source books is frankly, more than thry can bear. Put yourself in their shoes. You didn't have to lose the old world. Imagine if you did. I'm personally ok with more limited fluff for s starting game, it Jesus Christ, if you are talking about four factions of numerous races that have survived Armageddon from the old world, I want to read about the four factions and numerous, not just sigmarines and khorne bloody berserkers. I don't want to have to wait years for the faction I peotentially spent years collecting to make a bloody cameo.
I'd like GW to have staggered releases from multiple factions as well rather than just pushing out entire, finished factions in the span of a month. But I think that with the new aesthetic, GW doesn't have finalized designs for the new races and thus can't show them yet. But that's just conjecture on my part. I don't really have any control over what GW does or how they do it.
$100 in paints and tools? What are you smoking? Yeah, maybe if you buy from GW you'll end up spending that. I've made a run down of the minimum you need to buy and paint a Warmachine starter kit. This is from the Warstore, mind you.
Starter Set: $80
Army painter Brush starter set: $11.49
Army painter super glue: $4
Army Painter clippers: $6.00
X-acto Knife: $3
Vallejo paints: (Red, Black, Gun Metal, Grey, Brown Wash, Brown, Flesh color, Burgundy, White and Gold)
Krylon Primer: $7
Spring for Agrax Earthshade and get a cream color if you want a better/easier result.
This all works out to be $141.49. Yes, for $16 more than the AoS starter set you can get the Warmachine starter set and everything you need to bring it to a TT standard. The hobby may be expensive but going the GW route ups those costs by a good margin. Besides, you want to talk about models per starter set then check out the Hail Caesar starter .
I'm a Dogs of War player, and literally *ALL* of my favorite characters are gone. Same with my favorite units. And my non-favorites, too. Complaining about losing "official" rules for a handful of very old characters would be like me being upset that GW isn't supporting the original Regiments of Renown from waaay back when GW used leaded pewter. If your army had been Squatted, I think you take a different tack over losing a few models versus the whole fething thing. It's really fething petty is what it is.
Coming up with good backgrounds is not easy. Tolkien spent years refining Middle Earth, much as GW spent years building up the Old World. They are rich worlds, and the average gamer simply does not have the time, ability or inclination to make something like this in their spare time. Also, the Old World is awfully full. The very richness of detail that GW has added over the years has progressively removed places for players to make their own. With the broad development of Fluff and emphasis on hordes, Fantasy had become more pseudo-historical gaming than actual "fantasy" gaming.
Being able to make stuff up allows me to play my Dogs of War without "points" cost issues. For me, that's a good thing. I don't see what's gone too far.
One could argue that all our armies have been squatted. They no longer receive any official support for Warhammer Fantasy Battles.
Dogs of War were pretty neat! I liked the concept of adding mercenaries to armies and can remember going up against them once or twice. Good games, even if they ended horribly for my wolfboyz. If you don't like points as a concept, well, I guess that's your preference, but I never had an issue with squaring off against the Dogs of War. Did they get an updated list for Age of Sigmar?
I'd think it would be obvious losing the setting overall is more important than losing special characters. Not trying to be petty, just trying to give a counter-point to Matt's first point. Sorry if that offended you.
Now, as for the rest of the post...
Warhammer's basically always been pseudo-historical, at least in the background. Apart from the obvious real-world parallels - have you looked at any of the old, OLD WHFRP stuff? Lots of interesting little bits. In fact, I'd argue that recent developments moved it closer and closer to 'fantasy' gaming, what with the focus on giant monsters and magic and people turning into demigods because of said magic and all the other things that bothered me about End Times That was it's own unique flavor, and it's sad for me to see that be swapped out for some loosely inspired Norse mythology/Warcraft hybrid.
The fullness of the Old World never stopped me from writing background. It inspired it, actually. I'd poke around the map and see what looked interesting, then see if anything had already been written for it, and bam! Incorporate that. This character's a goblin warlord living in the Border Princes who picks on caravans going to Malko. That one's a Bretonnian knight who believes himself to be the rightful lord of the Hautmont. For me, it's always easier to build interesting background with a seed to work with. And, on that subject, I know I'm not alone. I was involved for years with a series of online campaigns that did just that - picked up on bits and pieces of fluff, then really fleshed them out, made them its own, and made Warhammer magic. In, by the way, the GM team's spare time. We hit Araby (twice!), Cathay and Nippon, Estalia, and Norsca...and each time, the GM team had an enormous resource pool to draw on. From maps to concept art to fan-based speculation...and that was a massive help, not an impediment. That argument just doesn't make sense to me.
One cannot argue that the bulk of armies were Squatted in AoS, given that GW provided new lists for them, unlike Dogs of War. DoW did not get a GW official AoS list. Haven't had one from GW since WFB 6E, carryover midway into early 7E, memory holed during 7E, non-existant during 8E. I made an AoS list so I can play my DoW, and have gotten in more 8E games under AoS than all of WFB 8E.
As a DoW player, I strongly disagree with losing the setting being important. During 8E, the Old World setting was still there, but DoW Special Characters (and army) were Squatted.
I started into WFB at the very tail of 5E, and the AoS armies look a lot more like what we saw at the end of Herohammer than pre-End Times 8E - a skirmish game ruled by huge things with some small units to fill the deployment line. Pre-ET 8E is "pseudo-historical" in the sense it's about huge numbers of models on the board, elephant-equivalents not withstanding. ET was a good move, because it brought WFB back to having Fantasy things instead of boring block infantry. Aside from a Border Princes campaign early on, it's just been even points fixed list battles.
TheCustomLime wrote: $100 in paints and tools? What are you smoking? Yeah, maybe if you buy from GW you'll end up spending that. I've made a run down of the minimum you need to buy and paint a Warmachine starter kit. This is from the Warstore, mind you.
Starter Set: $80
Army painter Brush starter set: $11.49
Army painter super glue: $4
Army Painter clippers: $6.00
X-acto Knife: $3
Vallejo paints: (Red, Black, Gun Metal, Grey, Brown Wash, Brown, Flesh color, Burgundy, White and Gold)
Krylon Primer: $7
Spring for Agrax Earthshade and get a cream color if you want a better/easier result.
I was assuming that a new miniatures player would stick to whatever ecosystem of tools were available for their chosen game. So if they decided to start playing 40k or AoS, all the painting guides and tool recommendations would be GW, while a WMH player would stick with the P3 paint line. I would assume that they would not be familiar with the tools and thus would buy the ones recommended to them - so yeah, we're talking $20 cans of primer from your local Games Workshop. With more experience, they'll realize that the $7 can of Krylon primer is better, but the GW stuff will be their baseline for the first year or so. Again, this is assuming a first time miniature player without a social group to ease them in.
I won't get into the WM vs AoS argument, but I do find your estimate to be fairly optimistic - based on years of experience and price shopping that a virgin player won't have. I'll admit that I stuck with the GW stuff initially (for WM, but this was way before the P3 line started) just because it was easily available and required little research. When I needed a file for some metal models, I just got the GW one because I didn't have to research files and learn which grains and shapes were best for metal and resin models. For a new Warmachine player, my guess is that they'll grab a starter set, the three paint sets (kingdom colors, khador, and menoth), P3 primer, and whatever P3 tools there are. It will be considerably cheaper, but not as easily accessible. I can't get P3 stuff in my city and have to mail order it, but there's multiple places I can get citadel stuff.
Yeah, the AoS starter set may give you more models in the box and that may justify the extra cost to you but consider that the Warmachine starter puts you on a much better footing to a complete army than the AoS set.
I'm not even sure what constitutes a "complete army" for AoS...
That's a fair point to make. When I started out in the hobby I used exclusively GW tools and products. And a new player would only know about the stuff in his immediate hobby store.
Long story short (too late), the price is the last thing a new player (or old player) really looks at when deciding to play a new game. I think GW knows this too, which explains their prices for AoS units.
So, GW would have to reduce the number of figures needed for the game in order to reduce the price... which they did with Age of Sigmar.
Our shop has about five different minis games people can play. The newbs usually look around at all of them. If you think price is truly the last thing (and not even the second most important) then uh, you definitely are a GW customer.
GW did reduce the number of models in boxes, that's for sure. Instead of 10 guys for 50 bucks you now get five blood guys for 50 bucks. You don't need 100 of them now until your buddies want to play more. As always, they'll emphasize collections in their writing. Collections aren't one box of blood guys.
Re: buying only citadel kit tools, someone who drops 150 bucks on blood guys and Sigmarines would almost never buy 30 dollar clippers and 30 dollar primer and 15 dollar glue, just doesn't happen. Dudes are trying to skimp on everything to even afford starting the game.
Our shop has about five different minis games people can play. The newbs usually look around at all of them. If you think price is truly the last thing (and not even the second most important) then uh, you definitely are a GW customer.
I'm not a GW customer, strictly speaking. I buy way more Warmachine models. I just remember when I first started with miniatures many, many moons ago. I got a demo of Warmachine at a con, like a week or two before it was released. I'd always been enamored by miniature games (I used to buy White Dwarfs and just stare at the pictures), but I tried out WM and enjoyed it and decided to jump in - only to find out how expensive it was well after I was already mentally committed. By then, I was in.
I do think price is important, and one of the first things I had to wrestle with on AoS was the price of boxes (and especially the $30 single figures). So I wouldn't discount the price of things. I just don't think that the GW extra cost is enough to make a new player balk as opposed to the regular cost of other lines. On my WMH wishlist, I have a figure for $32 and a character jack for $42. One day, I'd like to get a colossal, but those are $100+ usually. So I think the cost of continued investment in a miniatures game is already high, and I just don't think GW's premium cost is so much higher that it would be a dealbreaker by itself.
In short, miniature games are expensive. GW games are more expensive, but for that to matter, you must have already accepted the initial expense associated with becoming a mini wargamer.
GW did reduce the number of models in boxes, that's for sure. Instead of 10 guys for 50 bucks you now get five blood guys for 50 bucks. You don't need 100 of them now until your buddies want to play more. As always, they'll emphasize collections in their writing. Collections aren't one box of blood guys.
The Stormcast Eternals are elite units and priced accordingly. I believe you get 20 Bloodreavers for $60 and 16 Dryads for $40. In general, I don't think GW charges by the model, but instead by the unit. It's roughly $50-$60 for a basic unit, regardless of the number of models, and $70-$80 for one of the big colossal type units.
Re: buying only citadel kit tools, someone who drops 150 bucks on blood guys and Sigmarines would almost never buy 30 dollar clippers and 30 dollar primer and 15 dollar glue, just doesn't happen. Dudes are trying to skimp on everything to even afford starting the game.
They will if that's the only option immediately available to them, and Warhammer stores make damn sure it is.
Sqorgar wrote: [
Miniatures are an expensive hobby, especially when starting out. Buying a starter box, at the very minimum, you need to get the polystyrene glue and clippers/hobby knife (or both, ideally). It took me about 9 hours to put together my Age of Sigmar box of 48 models. That's before you can even play the game. If you want to paint your figures (and unless you are a Warmachine player, you probably do), that's going to be about $100 in paints and tools, and possibly a hundred hours or more or painting.
Snide comment is snide. What do you mean 'unless you are a warmachine player, you probably do'? Hmm? I play it painted, and I spend about three of four hours per model with painting. And I'm far from the only one.
And frankly, I e seen plenty GW armies that were 'grey legions'...
Leave the snide 'we are betterer hobbyists' behind, eh?
Sqorgar wrote: [
GW is expensive. I don't think anybody could argue otherwise. And with the price of petroleum products going up, one day, plastic miniatures may be more expensive than metal ones. WHFB, which is best played with hundreds of models, isn't cost effective for the players... or GW. With the rising cost per figure, it's very likely that the prospect of a game with many hundreds of models as its base line would become too expensive to maintain or sell to players. So, GW would have to reduce the number of figures needed for the game in order to reduce the price... which they did with Age of Sigmar.
Fail
. The cost of raw materials (in this case - plastic) is negligible for Gw. Gw prices aren't high because crude is going up, gw prices are high because they are gouging their customers and trying to recoup Their moulds and pay for the bloody retail chain. And give kirby a golden parachute.. Why else can companies like the Perries or any of the makers of historicals make mass battle games on a model scale that dwarves gw, but can still retail their stuff for a lot less.
Deadnight wrote: The cost of raw materials (in this case - plastic) is negligible for Gw. Gw prices aren't high because crude is going up, gw prices are high because they are gouging their customers and trying to recoup Their moulds and pay for the bloody retail chain. And give kirby a golden parachute.. Why else can companies like the Perries or any of the makers of historicals make mass battle games on a model scale that dwarves gw, but can still retail their stuff for a lot less.
It never ceases to amaze me how people keep on refusing to see this.
Deadnight wrote: The cost of raw materials (in this case - plastic) is negligible for Gw. Gw prices aren't high because crude is going up, gw prices are high because they are gouging their customers and trying to recoup Their moulds and pay for the bloody retail chain. And give kirby a golden parachute.. Why else can companies like the Perries or any of the makers of historicals make mass battle games on a model scale that dwarves gw, but can still retail their stuff for a lot less.
It never ceases to amaze me how people keep on refusing to see this.
Yup, it's not like it's in their publically available financials or anything...
Why else can companies like the Perries or any of the makers of historicals make mass battle games on a model scale that dwarves gw, but can still retail their stuff for a lot less.
Well the Perry's are also not beholden to stockholders and have a much lower operating cost overall since they don't have retail store chains to pay for and all of the other expenses GW has such as payroll for employees.
Both of those things also play a significant role in the end price of product, and the Perry twins have little to none of those to deal with.
The worst thing that can happen to a company is when it goes public.
Why else can companies like the Perries or any of the makers of historicals make mass battle games on a model scale that dwarves gw, but can still retail their stuff for a lot less.
Well the Perry's are also not beholden to stockholders and have a much lower operating cost overall since they don't have retail store chains to pay for and all of the other expenses GW has such as payroll for employees.
Both of those things also play a significant role in the end price of product, and the Perry twins have little to none of those to deal with.
The worst thing that can happen to a company is when it goes public.
Funnily enough ending the retail chain altogether and working together with FLGS's all around is an action that has appeared multiples times as a possible solution to the crazy price hikes, but it would involve GW being far more open to FLGS than it actually is (or wishes to be). And it does seem quite feasible.
Yeah - if GW dropped their store chains they'd be cutting a huge cost out of their bottom line.
That requires management that allows the community to police itself and not dictate how their models get used though - which is a lot of their problem (GW)
They don't even stock a full range of their own in-house stuff (Black Library is only the newest, there's tonnes of online-only minis).
I never understood why they don't also have the FFG and console stuff. Would it have killed them to stock the Space Marine console games, or have voucher cards for Total War or the shovelware releases?
Herzlos wrote: They don't even stock a full range of their own in-house stuff (Black Library is only the newest, there's tonnes of online-only minis).
I never understood why they don't also have the FFG and console stuff. Would it have killed them to stock the Space Marine console games, or have voucher cards for Total War or the shovelware releases?
My guess is that their distribution network is vertically integrated. They can get any Games Workshop good easily, but they don't have distribution partners that could get them video games or whatever. They COULD, but it might not be worth the hassle for only one or two additional products - though FFG does make enough Warhammer stuff that you'd think they could deal with them directly.
I'm a Dogs of War player, and literally *ALL* of my favorite characters are gone. Same with my favorite units. And my non-favorites, too. Complaining about losing "official" rules for a handful of very old characters would be like me being upset that GW isn't supporting the original Regiments of Renown from waaay back when GW used leaded pewter. If your army had been Squatted, I think you take a different tack over losing a few models versus the whole fething thing. It's really fething petty is what it is.
Coming up with good backgrounds is not easy. Tolkien spent years refining Middle Earth, much as GW spent years building up the Old World. They are rich worlds, and the average gamer simply does not have the time, ability or inclination to make something like this in their spare time. Also, the Old World is awfully full. The very richness of detail that GW has added over the years has progressively removed places for players to make their own. With the broad development of Fluff and emphasis on hordes, Fantasy had become more pseudo-historical gaming than actual "fantasy" gaming.
Being able to make stuff up allows me to play my Dogs of War without "points" cost issues. For me, that's a good thing. I don't see what's gone too far.
One could argue that all our armies have been squatted. They no longer receive any official support for Warhammer Fantasy Battles.
Dogs of War were pretty neat! I liked the concept of adding mercenaries to armies and can remember going up against them once or twice. Good games, even if they ended horribly for my wolfboyz. If you don't like points as a concept, well, I guess that's your preference, but I never had an issue with squaring off against the Dogs of War. Did they get an updated list for Age of Sigmar?
I'd think it would be obvious losing the setting overall is more important than losing special characters. Not trying to be petty, just trying to give a counter-point to Matt's first point. Sorry if that offended you.
Now, as for the rest of the post...
Warhammer's basically always been pseudo-historical, at least in the background. Apart from the obvious real-world parallels - have you looked at any of the old, OLD WHFRP stuff? Lots of interesting little bits. In fact, I'd argue that recent developments moved it closer and closer to 'fantasy' gaming, what with the focus on giant monsters and magic and people turning into demigods because of said magic and all the other things that bothered me about End Times That was it's own unique flavor, and it's sad for me to see that be swapped out for some loosely inspired Norse mythology/Warcraft hybrid.
The fullness of the Old World never stopped me from writing background. It inspired it, actually. I'd poke around the map and see what looked interesting, then see if anything had already been written for it, and bam! Incorporate that. This character's a goblin warlord living in the Border Princes who picks on caravans going to Malko. That one's a Bretonnian knight who believes himself to be the rightful lord of the Hautmont. For me, it's always easier to build interesting background with a seed to work with. And, on that subject, I know I'm not alone. I was involved for years with a series of online campaigns that did just that - picked up on bits and pieces of fluff, then really fleshed them out, made them its own, and made Warhammer magic. In, by the way, the GM team's spare time. We hit Araby (twice!), Cathay and Nippon, Estalia, and Norsca...and each time, the GM team had an enormous resource pool to draw on. From maps to concept art to fan-based speculation...and that was a massive help, not an impediment. That argument just doesn't make sense to me.
One cannot argue that the bulk of armies were Squatted in AoS, given that GW provided new lists for them, unlike Dogs of War. DoW did not get a GW official AoS list. Haven't had one from GW since WFB 6E, carryover midway into early 7E, memory holed during 7E, non-existant during 8E. I made an AoS list so I can play my DoW, and have gotten in more 8E games under AoS than all of WFB 8E.
As a DoW player, I strongly disagree with losing the setting being important. During 8E, the Old World setting was still there, but DoW Special Characters (and army) were Squatted.
I started into WFB at the very tail of 5E, and the AoS armies look a lot more like what we saw at the end of Herohammer than pre-End Times 8E - a skirmish game ruled by huge things with some small units to fill the deployment line. Pre-ET 8E is "pseudo-historical" in the sense it's about huge numbers of models on the board, elephant-equivalents not withstanding. ET was a good move, because it brought WFB back to having Fantasy things instead of boring block infantry. Aside from a Border Princes campaign early on, it's just been even points fixed list battles.
I'm sorry, I can't be reading this right. Did...did we switch positions? Last post you said it would be petty to complain about losing special characters when the setting had been done away with, and...now you're saying that the fact that your army and characters never got updated means you don't care about the setting?
See, I disagree that throwing in more 'fantasy' things was a good move - the Warhammer flavor (at least for me) is grim-and-gritty low fantasy, and if you've got giant mystical monsters and people imbued with the essence of magic itself dueling back and forth everywhere, that takes the focus off the halberdier who wasn't even equipped with shoes - but I guess we're just looking for different things here. Although I'm not sure how you pull off Dogs of War without relying on block infantry.
As for the fixed list battles thing - which I guess is all you played in eighth edition, is that what you were saying? - sounds more like an issue with a gaming group than the game itself. Eighth had plenty of scenarios, nothing stopped you from writing your own - or, in fact, updating Dogs of War to eighth edition like you have with Age of Sigmar! - and there was even less to stop people from using scenarios that had been published during earlier periods (Whee! I get to reference the General's Compendium again!)
...now I REALLY want to break that book out again and play the Siege of Nuln. Starts with goblins disguised as washerwomen sneaking past nearsighted checkpoint guards, ends with a massive setpiece battle on a giant bridge. Cinematic, narrative - all those buzzwords GW likes to throw around, and it's got points, so we should all be happy :p
Sqorgar wrote: They will if that's the only option immediately available to them, and Warhammer stores make damn sure it is.
There is one GW store in my state of 10 million people, and at least 15-20 independent stores. Add to that 'other hobby' shops and craft stores and it makes GW stores pretty much irrelevant, especially so when they close when the dude can't work that day, lol.
See, I disagree that throwing in more 'fantasy' things was a good move - the Warhammer flavor (at least for me) is grim-and-gritty low fantasy, and if you've got giant mystical monsters and people imbued with the essence of magic itself dueling back and forth everywhere, that takes the focus off the halberdier who wasn't even equipped with shoes - but I guess we're just looking for different things here.
You've got your high/low fantasy terminology wrong, but you certainly aren't an exception to the rule . Both the Old World and the Eight Realms are high fantasy settings. As for the grim and gritty - the old Warhammer Monthly stories were very good at portraying the spirit of the Old World. This appealed very much to me.
There's a few different definitions of high and low fantasy running around out there - I prefer the 'low fantasy has magic and fantastical elements, but they're in the background and the focus is decidedly on relatively ordinary people; high fantasy has the focus on demigods, mythic heroes, and magic' definition, since it's an easy one to distinguish.
The debate about high/low fantasy is one that I've participated in enough times to not want to be dragged in one again so I'll drop it here . The good thing is most people in wargaming will know what you mean when you say high/low fantasy.
Spinner wrote: There's a few different definitions of high and low fantasy running around out there - I prefer the 'low fantasy has magic and fantastical elements, but they're in the background and the focus is decidedly on relatively ordinary people; high fantasy has the focus on demigods, mythic heroes, and magic' definition, since it's an easy one to distinguish.
I'd always understood similar - low fantasy, Henrik McPoomp spends his entire life shovelling manure and eating turnips, until one day a guy in glowing armour riding a griffon appears, smashes his house up as he flies past, and disappears forever. Henrik later dies from tetanus caused by a splinter from a wooden fork.
High fantasy, everyone eats breakfast off the floating mystical plates of Az'gla'munc:k, flies to work on a dragon-younger, and is an apprentice mage at the monastery-citadel of the ancient order of the celestial dawn makers.
Doesn't really matter to me whether it's high or low fantasy. (Though I do prefer low)
As long as it's dark or grim fantasy.
Dark fantasy, George entered his house after a weary day of repairing the destroyed defenses of the citadel after the horrors of madness smashed it down and killed half the population in the city. Then George remembered, his house was destroyed amongst the devastation. Crunch!
I'm a Dogs of War player, and literally *ALL* of my favorite characters are gone. Same with my favorite units. And my non-favorites, too. Complaining about losing "official" rules for a handful of very old characters would be like me being upset that GW isn't supporting the original Regiments of Renown from waaay back when GW used leaded pewter. If your army had been Squatted, I think you take a different tack over losing a few models versus the whole fething thing. It's really fething petty is what it is.
Coming up with good backgrounds is not easy. Tolkien spent years refining Middle Earth, much as GW spent years building up the Old World. They are rich worlds, and the average gamer simply does not have the time, ability or inclination to make something like this in their spare time. Also, the Old World is awfully full. The very richness of detail that GW has added over the years has progressively removed places for players to make their own. With the broad development of Fluff and emphasis on hordes, Fantasy had become more pseudo-historical gaming than actual "fantasy" gaming.
Being able to make stuff up allows me to play my Dogs of War without "points" cost issues. For me, that's a good thing. I don't see what's gone too far.
One could argue that all our armies have been squatted. They no longer receive any official support for Warhammer Fantasy Battles.
Dogs of War were pretty neat! I liked the concept of adding mercenaries to armies and can remember going up against them once or twice. Good games, even if they ended horribly for my wolfboyz. If you don't like points as a concept, well, I guess that's your preference, but I never had an issue with squaring off against the Dogs of War. Did they get an updated list for Age of Sigmar?
I'd think it would be obvious losing the setting overall is more important than losing special characters. Not trying to be petty, just trying to give a counter-point to Matt's first point. Sorry if that offended you.
Now, as for the rest of the post...
Warhammer's basically always been pseudo-historical, at least in the background. Apart from the obvious real-world parallels - have you looked at any of the old, OLD WHFRP stuff? Lots of interesting little bits. In fact, I'd argue that recent developments moved it closer and closer to 'fantasy' gaming, what with the focus on giant monsters and magic and people turning into demigods because of said magic and all the other things that bothered me about End Times That was it's own unique flavor, and it's sad for me to see that be swapped out for some loosely inspired Norse mythology/Warcraft hybrid.
The fullness of the Old World never stopped me from writing background. It inspired it, actually. I'd poke around the map and see what looked interesting, then see if anything had already been written for it, and bam! Incorporate that. This character's a goblin warlord living in the Border Princes who picks on caravans going to Malko. That one's a Bretonnian knight who believes himself to be the rightful lord of the Hautmont. For me, it's always easier to build interesting background with a seed to work with. And, on that subject, I know I'm not alone. I was involved for years with a series of online campaigns that did just that - picked up on bits and pieces of fluff, then really fleshed them out, made them its own, and made Warhammer magic. In, by the way, the GM team's spare time. We hit Araby (twice!), Cathay and Nippon, Estalia, and Norsca...and each time, the GM team had an enormous resource pool to draw on. From maps to concept art to fan-based speculation...and that was a massive help, not an impediment. That argument just doesn't make sense to me.
One cannot argue that the bulk of armies were Squatted in AoS, given that GW provided new lists for them, unlike Dogs of War. DoW did not get a GW official AoS list. Haven't had one from GW since WFB 6E, carryover midway into early 7E, memory holed during 7E, non-existant during 8E. I made an AoS list so I can play my DoW, and have gotten in more 8E games under AoS than all of WFB 8E.
As a DoW player, I strongly disagree with losing the setting being important. During 8E, the Old World setting was still there, but DoW Special Characters (and army) were Squatted.
I started into WFB at the very tail of 5E, and the AoS armies look a lot more like what we saw at the end of Herohammer than pre-End Times 8E - a skirmish game ruled by huge things with some small units to fill the deployment line. Pre-ET 8E is "pseudo-historical" in the sense it's about huge numbers of models on the board, elephant-equivalents not withstanding. ET was a good move, because it brought WFB back to having Fantasy things instead of boring block infantry. Aside from a Border Princes campaign early on, it's just been even points fixed list battles.
I'm sorry, I can't be reading this right. Did...did we switch positions? Last post you said it would be petty to complain about losing special characters when the setting had been done away with, and...now you're saying that the fact that your army and characters never got updated means you don't care about the setting?
See, I disagree that throwing in more 'fantasy' things was a good move - the Warhammer flavor (at least for me) is grim-and-gritty low fantasy, and if you've got giant mystical monsters and people imbued with the essence of magic itself dueling back and forth everywhere, that takes the focus off the halberdier who wasn't even equipped with shoes - but I guess we're just looking for different things here. Although I'm not sure how you pull off Dogs of War without relying on block infantry.
As for the fixed list battles thing - which I guess is all you played in eighth edition, is that what you were saying? - sounds more like an issue with a gaming group than the game itself. Eighth had plenty of scenarios, nothing stopped you from writing your own - or, in fact, updating Dogs of War to eighth edition like you have with Age of Sigmar! - and there was even less to stop people from using scenarios that had been published during earlier periods (Whee! I get to reference the General's Compendium again!)
...now I REALLY want to break that book out again and play the Siege of Nuln. Starts with goblins disguised as washerwomen sneaking past nearsighted checkpoint guards, ends with a massive setpiece battle on a giant bridge. Cinematic, narrative - all those buzzwords GW likes to throw around, and it's got points, so we should all be happy :p
I think it's petty to complain about losing a few characters when others have lost their entire armies, because one can do without special characters if you still have an army. I think it's worse to lose your army than a setting, because it's harder to make up an army list.
Warhammer is definitely high fantasy, just gritty; I suppose one can focus on the mundanity of being a basic footman, but that kind of gets away from why one plays Fantasy... Dogs of War are a semi-elite army, where some blocks are needed, not a horde army like Gobbos.
By 8E, I was kinda going through the motions, stuck with an army 2 steps back on the power curve and having no official support. Updating DoW to 8E would have been a lot more work, what with the need to make spell lists and assign proper "points" to everything. AoS has less stuff to update / convert.
I've done scenarios, but as above, when you're not even close to competitive on an "even points" basis, it's a little discouraging. For our group, 8E was the straw that broke the camel's back.
Spinner wrote: There's a few different definitions of high and low fantasy running around out there - I prefer the 'low fantasy has magic and fantastical elements, but they're in the background and the focus is decidedly on relatively ordinary people; high fantasy has the focus on demigods, mythic heroes, and magic' definition, since it's an easy one to distinguish.
I'd always understood similar - low fantasy, Henrik McPoomp spends his entire life shovelling manure and eating turnips, until one day a guy in glowing armour riding a griffon appears, smashes his house up as he flies past, and disappears forever. Henrik later dies from tetanus caused by a splinter from a wooden fork.
High fantasy, everyone eats breakfast off the floating mystical plates of Az'gla'munc:k, flies to work on a dragon-younger, and is an apprentice mage at the monastery-citadel of the ancient order of the celestial dawn makers.
Those names are perfect. I'm using Henrik McPoomp in an RPG.
I'm a Dogs of War player, and literally *ALL* of my favorite characters are gone. Same with my favorite units. And my non-favorites, too. Complaining about losing "official" rules for a handful of very old characters would be like me being upset that GW isn't supporting the original Regiments of Renown from waaay back when GW used leaded pewter. If your army had been Squatted, I think you take a different tack over losing a few models versus the whole fething thing. It's really fething petty is what it is.
Coming up with good backgrounds is not easy. Tolkien spent years refining Middle Earth, much as GW spent years building up the Old World. They are rich worlds, and the average gamer simply does not have the time, ability or inclination to make something like this in their spare time. Also, the Old World is awfully full. The very richness of detail that GW has added over the years has progressively removed places for players to make their own. With the broad development of Fluff and emphasis on hordes, Fantasy had become more pseudo-historical gaming than actual "fantasy" gaming.
Being able to make stuff up allows me to play my Dogs of War without "points" cost issues. For me, that's a good thing. I don't see what's gone too far.
One could argue that all our armies have been squatted. They no longer receive any official support for Warhammer Fantasy Battles.
Dogs of War were pretty neat! I liked the concept of adding mercenaries to armies and can remember going up against them once or twice. Good games, even if they ended horribly for my wolfboyz. If you don't like points as a concept, well, I guess that's your preference, but I never had an issue with squaring off against the Dogs of War. Did they get an updated list for Age of Sigmar?
I'd think it would be obvious losing the setting overall is more important than losing special characters. Not trying to be petty, just trying to give a counter-point to Matt's first point. Sorry if that offended you.
Now, as for the rest of the post...
Warhammer's basically always been pseudo-historical, at least in the background. Apart from the obvious real-world parallels - have you looked at any of the old, OLD WHFRP stuff? Lots of interesting little bits. In fact, I'd argue that recent developments moved it closer and closer to 'fantasy' gaming, what with the focus on giant monsters and magic and people turning into demigods because of said magic and all the other things that bothered me about End Times That was it's own unique flavor, and it's sad for me to see that be swapped out for some loosely inspired Norse mythology/Warcraft hybrid.
The fullness of the Old World never stopped me from writing background. It inspired it, actually. I'd poke around the map and see what looked interesting, then see if anything had already been written for it, and bam! Incorporate that. This character's a goblin warlord living in the Border Princes who picks on caravans going to Malko. That one's a Bretonnian knight who believes himself to be the rightful lord of the Hautmont. For me, it's always easier to build interesting background with a seed to work with. And, on that subject, I know I'm not alone. I was involved for years with a series of online campaigns that did just that - picked up on bits and pieces of fluff, then really fleshed them out, made them its own, and made Warhammer magic. In, by the way, the GM team's spare time. We hit Araby (twice!), Cathay and Nippon, Estalia, and Norsca...and each time, the GM team had an enormous resource pool to draw on. From maps to concept art to fan-based speculation...and that was a massive help, not an impediment. That argument just doesn't make sense to me.
One cannot argue that the bulk of armies were Squatted in AoS, given that GW provided new lists for them, unlike Dogs of War. DoW did not get a GW official AoS list. Haven't had one from GW since WFB 6E, carryover midway into early 7E, memory holed during 7E, non-existant during 8E. I made an AoS list so I can play my DoW, and have gotten in more 8E games under AoS than all of WFB 8E.
As a DoW player, I strongly disagree with losing the setting being important. During 8E, the Old World setting was still there, but DoW Special Characters (and army) were Squatted.
I started into WFB at the very tail of 5E, and the AoS armies look a lot more like what we saw at the end of Herohammer than pre-End Times 8E - a skirmish game ruled by huge things with some small units to fill the deployment line. Pre-ET 8E is "pseudo-historical" in the sense it's about huge numbers of models on the board, elephant-equivalents not withstanding. ET was a good move, because it brought WFB back to having Fantasy things instead of boring block infantry. Aside from a Border Princes campaign early on, it's just been even points fixed list battles.
I'm sorry, I can't be reading this right. Did...did we switch positions? Last post you said it would be petty to complain about losing special characters when the setting had been done away with, and...now you're saying that the fact that your army and characters never got updated means you don't care about the setting?
See, I disagree that throwing in more 'fantasy' things was a good move - the Warhammer flavor (at least for me) is grim-and-gritty low fantasy, and if you've got giant mystical monsters and people imbued with the essence of magic itself dueling back and forth everywhere, that takes the focus off the halberdier who wasn't even equipped with shoes - but I guess we're just looking for different things here. Although I'm not sure how you pull off Dogs of War without relying on block infantry.
As for the fixed list battles thing - which I guess is all you played in eighth edition, is that what you were saying? - sounds more like an issue with a gaming group than the game itself. Eighth had plenty of scenarios, nothing stopped you from writing your own - or, in fact, updating Dogs of War to eighth edition like you have with Age of Sigmar! - and there was even less to stop people from using scenarios that had been published during earlier periods (Whee! I get to reference the General's Compendium again!)
...now I REALLY want to break that book out again and play the Siege of Nuln. Starts with goblins disguised as washerwomen sneaking past nearsighted checkpoint guards, ends with a massive setpiece battle on a giant bridge. Cinematic, narrative - all those buzzwords GW likes to throw around, and it's got points, so we should all be happy :p
I think it's petty to complain about losing a few characters when others have lost their entire armies, because one can do without special characters if you still have an army. I think it's worse to lose your army than a setting, because it's harder to make up an army list.
Warhammer is definitely high fantasy, just gritty; I suppose one can focus on the mundanity of being a basic footman, but that kind of gets away from why one plays Fantasy... Dogs of War are a semi-elite army, where some blocks are needed, not a horde army like Gobbos.
By 8E, I was kinda going through the motions, stuck with an army 2 steps back on the power curve and having no official support. Updating DoW to 8E would have been a lot more work, what with the need to make spell lists and assign proper "points" to everything. AoS has less stuff to update / convert.
I've done scenarios, but as above, when you're not even close to competitive on an "even points" basis, it's a little discouraging. For our group, 8E was the straw that broke the camel's back.
I'm not sure I'm reading this right either, because what it seems like is that you're saying no one can complain about background changing and units being taken out except Dogs of War players, Chaos Dwarf players (unless you count Tamurkhan!), and anyone who built an army around the Storm of Chaos rules. Which...makes little to no sense. I never used special characters anyway, it was much more fun to come up with my own, but I still don't think that 'my favorite special characters are gone!' counts as a misconception when my favorite special characters ARE gone. For the record, I do think Dogs of War should have been updated, but I disagree with a great many of GW's choices.
Did Morglum Necksnapper actually have any rules? Anyone know?
I have to strongly disagree with you on the 'it's harder to write an army list than a setting' statement. I mean, you COULD write a very simple, blank-canvas setting, but we're not talking about that, we're talking about the Warhammer World. The Old World alone is incredibly rich and detailed. I'm not saying that writing an army list is easy, but I am saying that tweaking some points to bring a list in line with current lists would be a lot simpler than coming up with an entire setting. You wouldn't even need to make special spell lists; it's a generic mostly human army, they get the Eight Winds same as the Empire.
And yes, I know they're not goblins or skaven, but they're not exactly elves or ogres either. As I recall, there were a lot of basic block type units (pikes and so forth), generically named mercenary units (heavy cavalry, light cavalry, ogres), and some interesting and colorful 'special character' regiments. I guess you could do a cav army, but I was always drawn to the pikes. Just try it, cavalry bus, see what happens!
In fact WHFB flipped and flopped between being high and low fantasy, depending on GW's strategy each edition.
Early WHFB was very much high fantasy, it was all about the heroes and wizards, the bog standard troops were only there for scenery for the villains to chew.
Then GW realised they could sell more stuff if they made the rank and file more important.
Then GW realised they could sell more stuff if they made big heroes and monsters and war machines more important.
Etc.
From this perspective, AoS is definitely high fantasy. It's a skirmish game between small forces of powerful units, with lots of monsters and so on.
It won't actually work as a low fantasy mass battle game, because the movement and combat mechanics are not streamlined.
Kilkrazy wrote: In fact WHFB flipped and flopped between being high and low fantasy, depending on GW's strategy each edition.
Early WHFB was very much high fantasy, it was all about the heroes and wizards, the bog standard troops were only there for scenery for the villains to chew.
Then GW realised they could sell more stuff if they made the rank and file more important.
Then GW realised they could sell more stuff if they made big heroes and monsters and war machines more important.
Etc.
From this perspective, AoS is definitely high fantasy. It's a skirmish game between small forces of powerful units, with lots of monsters and so on.
It won't actually work as a low fantasy mass battle game, because the movement and combat mechanics are not streamlined.
High model count =/= low fantasy
Low model count =/= high fantasy
It's to do with the fluff. Mordheim is a low fantasy for example.
The distinction between low and high fantasy is not who a story focuses on but on the abundance of fantasy tropes in the story's universe.
When you've got dragon riding wizards shooting lightning bolts at orcs, it's high fantasy. If you ride a tornado into a magical land and go on adventures with a lion, tin man, and scarecrow, that's high fantasy. Low fantasy is stuff like the Elves and the Shoemaker, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or Preacher - stuff that largely takes place in the real world with fantastic elements.
There's probably a middle spot between low and high where things like Conan, Berserk, and Game of Thrones fit - things which are high fantasy, but still take place in a largely realistic world and the fantastical elements are not commonplace to the world's inhabitants. Conan is technically part of the Cthulhu mythos, so I guess it also qualifies as horror/scifi.
Sqorgar wrote: The distinction between low and high fantasy is not who a story focuses on but on the abundance of fantasy tropes in the story's universe.
When you've got dragon riding wizards shooting lightning bolts at orcs, it's high fantasy. If you ride a tornado into a magical land and go on adventures with a lion, tin man, and scarecrow, that's high fantasy. Low fantasy is stuff like the Elves and the Shoemaker, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or Preacher - stuff that largely takes place in the real world with fantastic elements.
There's probably a middle spot between low and high where things like Conan, Berserk, and Game of Thrones fit - things which are high fantasy, but still take place in a largely realistic world and the fantastical elements are not commonplace to the world's inhabitants. Conan is technically part of the Cthulhu mythos, so I guess it also qualifies as horror/scifi.
Couple of things I'd like to touch on here.
The distinction between low, and high fantasy I feel is better explained not by abundance but by accessibility. A low fantasy world can contain dragons, it can contain wizards, it can contain orcs and lightning magic. It may even have a climatic combination of all three. If you see something like this on a weekly basis however, when these different tropes and themes become commonplace, that is where we transition from low to high fantasy. Another example would be to look at the Hobbit, with only a handful of elves and dwarves and a single wizard who doesn't use much magic as low fantasy, contrasting with Lord of the Rings with elven armies, a legion of robed wizard-like figures riding dragon-like creatures and more wizards than you can shake a staff at.
Your latter examples (not touching Beserk as unfamiliar with that one), I would call Conan and GoT certainly low fantasy but moving toward high fantasy as the world grows smaller the more it's explored. Specifically on your comment on Conan being part of the Lovecraftian mythos, I don't believe that is the case. Robert E. Howard and Howard Phillips Lovecraft were good friends in life, and often wrote back and forth to each other and put little easter eggs or nods to one another in their works. They were not the same world or story, simply two friends giving subtle nods that we've had decades to catalogue.
The distinction between low, and high fantasy I feel is better explained not by abundance but by accessibility. A low fantasy world can contain dragons, it can contain wizards, it can contain orcs and lightning magic. It may even have a climatic combination of all three. If you see something like this on a weekly basis however, when these different tropes and themes become commonplace, that is where we transition from low to high fantasy. Another example would be to look at the Hobbit, with only a handful of elves and dwarves and a single wizard who doesn't use much magic as low fantasy, contrasting with Lord of the Rings with elven armies, a legion of robed wizard-like figures riding dragon-like creatures and more wizards than you can shake a staff at.
The Hobbit has elves, dwarves, magic, dragons, ogres, giant subterranean cities built inside a mountain, and a ring that turns people invisible created by basically an evil god king to rule the world. The Hobbit is high fantasy. In fact, one could argue that because The Hobbit set up most of the fantasy tropes we now consider commonplace, it is THE high fantasy. And the movie trilogy is WTF Fantasy.
Your latter examples (not touching Beserk as unfamiliar with that one), I would call Conan and GoT certainly low fantasy but moving toward high fantasy as the world grows smaller the more it's explored. Specifically on your comment on Conan being part of the Lovecraftian mythos, I don't believe that is the case. Robert E. Howard and Howard Phillips Lovecraft were good friends in life, and often wrote back and forth to each other and put little easter eggs or nods to one another in their works. They were not the same world or story, simply two friends giving subtle nods that we've had decades to catalogue.
The Cthulhu Mythos didn't begin as an organized effort to create a multi-author canon. Even Lovecraft's work doesn't have continuity between stories or use its own mythology consistently. A large part of the organized mythos came from - I want to say Clark Ashton Smith or August Derleth. Anyway, Robert E. Howard definitely wrote some works that were distinctly mythos, like Worms of the Earth, but many of the Conan stories do have references and generally follow the whole cosmic horror angle - though Conan is less horrific and more the sheer power fantasy of uncivilized barbarism (he can beat the gak out of eldritch gods because he only wears a loin cloth and knows not the deceit and corruption of civilized man).
We're off topic here but hey, whether or not the gamer has changed genre moving from WHFB to AoS could be seen as a misconception
Sqorgar wrote: The Hobbit has elves, dwarves, magic, dragons, ogres, giant subterranean cities built inside a mountain, and a ring that turns people invisible created by basically an evil god king to rule the world. The Hobbit is high fantasy. In fact, one could argue that because The Hobbit set up most of the fantasy tropes we now consider commonplace, it is THE high fantasy. And the movie trilogy is WTF Fantasy.
I disagree massively here, the Hobbit is a fairy tale, not some high fantasy epic.
For reference, here is how wikipedia defines the term 'High Fantasy':
High fantasy is a subgenre of fantasy, defined either by its setting in an imaginary world or by the epic stature of its characters, themes and plot. The term "high fantasy" was coined by Lloyd Alexander in a 1971 essay, "High Fantasy and Heroic Romance".
Technically from that anything set in an imaginary world seems to count but these days that is every fantasy so lets disregard that part of the definition. Epic characters, themes and plots is not how I would describe the Hobbit. The movies they made yes, the characters and events within it viewed in the context of the narrative of Middle Earth yes, but the original book itself absolutely not. Gandalf is not a demi god, the ring is not THE one ring, and the fate of Middle Earth does not hang in the balance. It is just a few dwarves and a wizard who casts like maybe 2 spells in the whole thing on a nice little adventure across the country.
By the same merit I think that WHFB could be presented as high fantasy by one author and then low fantasy the next. A lot of the BL stories where just about your average Joes who never had to contend with the likes of dragons or world shaking events like a chaos invasion or the Sundering, but then there where these epic characters and events that become the focus of the actual wargame itself, if not the 'setting' as a whole.
Sqorgar wrote: The Cthulhu Mythos didn't begin as an organized effort to create a multi-author canon. Even Lovecraft's work doesn't have continuity between stories or use its own mythology consistently. A large part of the organized mythos came from - I want to say Clark Ashton Smith or August Derleth. Anyway, Robert E. Howard definitely wrote some works that were distinctly mythos, like Worms of the Earth, but many of the Conan stories do have references and generally follow the whole cosmic horror angle - though Conan is less horrific and more the sheer power fantasy of uncivilized barbarism (he can beat the gak out of eldritch gods because he only wears a loin cloth and knows not the deceit and corruption of civilized man).
Is any world ever born as an organized effort to create a canon? Certainly not multi-authored, as in both Lovecraft and Howard's case, as both settings were reworked after each authors death and much of the popularity we enjoy today never occurred in their lifetimes. Did Lovecraft ever intend his works to have a set continuity? From the way he wrote them, they're very much crafted as almost lone pieces with shared motif in grand horror and madness at the scope of an uncaring universe. There is no protagonist, there is no order of reading, this is intentional. As for Howard, he took inspiration from some of the mythos of course, this is not being contested. Worms of the Earth is not a Conan story, I would be wary linking a tale of Bran and his much more historical setting that includes direct Lovecraft mythos to Conan and his fantasy world which do not. I am surprised that you didn't choose the original draft of Pheonix for your arguing point, as before release it had much of Lovecrafts mythos by name.
What I am trying to get across is that these are two authors inspiring one another, and having playing references to each other in their individual work but never taking the step to link the two worlds together.
Kilkrazy wrote: In fact WHFB flipped and flopped between being high and low fantasy, depending on GW's strategy each edition.
Early WHFB was very much high fantasy, it was all about the heroes and wizards, the bog standard troops were only there for scenery for the villains to chew.
Then GW realised they could sell more stuff if they made the rank and file more important.
Then GW realised they could sell more stuff if they made big heroes and monsters and war machines more important.
Etc.
From this perspective, AoS is definitely high fantasy. It's a skirmish game between small forces of powerful units, with lots of monsters and so on.
It won't actually work as a low fantasy mass battle game, because the movement and combat mechanics are not streamlined.
High model count =/= low fantasy
Low model count =/= high fantasy
It's to do with the fluff. Mordheim is a low fantasy for example.
Cool story. Doesn't change what Low and High fantasy refer too. You can have a small band of farmers against a strange beast and that's Low fantasy. You can have armies of dragons squaring off against each other and that's High fantasy.
Collateral Jim wrote: Worms of the Earth is not a Conan story, I would be wary linking a tale of Bran and his much more historical setting that includes direct Lovecraft mythos to Conan and his fantasy world which do not. I am surprised that you didn't choose the original draft of Pheonix for your arguing point, as before release it had much of Lovecrafts mythos by name.
Honestly, I haven't read Robert E Howard in years, and when I did, I read through basically all his stuff in quick succession, so a lot of it is jumbled in my head. There was one where Conan visits a dead city with an eldritch horror stalking around, and I think the elephant guy in the tower was a god from beyond the stars. Honestly, Worms of the Earth was the only story I remembered the name of
It's been a while. I really should go back and reread all that stuff.
Yes, and GW flip-flopped between the importance of peasants and dragons during the lifetime of the game.
Doesn't matter what the power builds were. There's never been anything stopping you having low fantasy games of Warhammer, and age of Sigmar is no different. You can make an Empire army with few magical units.
In the name of bringing this back on-topic, I'd like to try and tackle OP. Been hesitant to do this because I didn't want to write an essay so will try to be selective with my points.
MongooseMatt wrote: All my favourite characters are gone! Just about all Chaos characters are still present. The Chaos Gods took their favourite servants and moved them to the Mortal Realms. Your Glottkin is still working hard for Nurgle (and doing a damn good job, as it happens, seriously kicking Alarielle’s rear end).
Obviously, Alarielle is still around, and she seems to be significantly more powerful. Tyrion and Teclis are still a thing.
Speaking from an artistic point of view, Gotrek had to die. Of all the characters from the world-that-was, he was the one who was always going to be killed…
We don’t yet know the full extent of who survived the End Times and while many have gone, there are still strong links to the Old World.
Manfred, for example, has just popped up...
This sounds like a confusion between the fluff of End Times and the fluff of Age of Sigmar. Characters died in End Times, quite a few of them and many changes in very significant ways that upset a great many people. I don't believe any are technically 'dead' however, and certainly not gone. The Sigmar fluff speaks of a great cloud of souls, and a cycle of reincarnation with all the great heroes of the past able to be reborn (at such a time which GW wants to make some bucks). So everybody died, but nobody died. I don't have so much problem with character death, as I do with a complete lack of gravity to their deaths. I may be upset when someone I like dies on Game of Thrones, but at least I know they'll stay dead and the stage is open for interesting new characters unlike anytime Superman or Robin dies. It just feels like the writers don't trust the audience to be able to cope with changes, whilst blasting out major changes.
Age of Sigmar is failing No one (except a few at GWHQ) knows anything about how the game has been selling. One store, or even a bunch of Internet forums, do not a firm basis make for this conclusion. The first clue we will get will be next year in GW’s financial reports, and we may not really know for 2-3 years.
It really is okay to wait and reserve judgement for later. There is no requirement to make a decision on this immediately!
This is a very good point, and one I too try and explain to people. Age of Sigmar is new, brand new as far as brands go and whilst it retains the Warhammer name it does not stand as a new edition of Fantasy Battles. It is effectively a new product and has to be treated as such. I feel we will have a very good idea by next financial report, well before 2-3 years of waiting.
I too am reserving judgement.
There is no balance in Age of Sigmar There is, but it is in your hands.
Even if we leave the ‘dick issue’ to one side (basically, don’t be one, and have as much consideration for your opponent’s fun as your own), there are now a handful of points systems available for AoS, and they are all community-made. As time goes on, they will become more accurate and more balanced. They are there and available for your use right now.
It is no secret that you don’t have to go far on a gaming forum to see people complaining about points imbalances in Fantasy Battle or 40k, and in these rants someone always bemoans the fact that GW does not engage in community-led pointing for units. After all, if thousands of people are submitting results, and points costs are updated, they will be far more accurate, right?
Well, that is what you have, right now, for Age of Sigmar. What is more, if you do not agree with one system (a certain points value for a unit will not be agreeable for everyone, you can be sure of that), then there are already others to try.
If competitive gaming is your thing, tournament organisers are now free to pick the points systems they feel work for them best – or simply come up with their own…
Given time, what can be more balanced than that?
But they could have added a points system, and all those ‘narrative’ gamers could have just ignored them – then everyone would have got what they wanted This is true (leaving aside the benefits of community-pointing for a moment). However, there is another problem and, speaking as a games designer, this is a very real one.
If you put a points-based system in, 99% of all players will use it to the exclusion of all else. Yes, they could just ignore points. But they won’t. Gamers just won’t.
How a game presents itself has a direct effect on how it is played, generally speaking. And this, I know, was a very real issue for the guys at GW in the past. During the days of 3rd Edition 40k, to cite an example, the vast majority of games played used the Dawn Assault mission because, for some reason, people had got it into their heads that it was the ‘fairest’ mission. They also tended to default to 1,500 points.
The problem for the designers is that they have all these other types of battles, and worlds, and models to show you, but if you are just playing 1,500 point Dawn Assault games, you are not getting any of it. You are missing out on a massive amount.
If you are the games designer responsible, that is a big issue. You are creating all this wonderful material, and none of it is getting used. It also means the game is going to stagnate – at some point, you will get bored with Dawn Assault, but if you have been conditioned to think that this is the only way of playing 40k, you may not be looking for alternatives.
I know this sounds ridiculous. But it is a very real thing, and it is very common.
By taking the points out of Age of Sigmar (and by the way they present scenarios), there is no ‘standard’ way of playing. You are being forced out of the comfort zone, and this is where the designers want you. They want you to experience Warhammer in a variety of formats that will keep you gaming for, well, forever.
This is a very hotly contested issue. The way I look at it is one of convenience. I can negotiate with an opponent what models to use and not use. What story to play out. What themes and ideas we want. Or I can throw a standard point value army in the car and swing past the local game store and see if someone wants a pick-up game without much notice. The latter is far, far more common everywhere I've been, and whilst I don't write off the former, it feels very much reserved for casual play between friends and not strangers.
Another thought I've had with all this is regarding the community approach to point and comp systems. Quite simply, I feel that any company providing a product that is unusable out of the box is breaching ethics with their consumers. You don't buy a car with assembly required. You don't buy a toaster and need a third party to let it do crumpets instead of just bread. It is not the responsibility of the consumer to fix a product.
You could argue that GW doesn't intend for points, and the community is entitled and assuming that what they want from a game is what GW has a responsibility to provide. I would agree with you, GW doesn't have a responsibility to cater to what people want. I would say that if they're not listening to their customer-base then they're at the very least missing their target and suffering from poor business practices.
The free rules are a marketing trick. GW wants you to buy the big, expensive hardback books Umm, yes. Of course they do. GW need to make money every month or they go bust, and then you will get no more Warhammer, of any flavour.
You can play Age of Sigmar with just the free materials (and, with the ‘legacy’ Warscrolls, there is a lot available for free) and go a long with just that. However, there is a lot more out there – eight entire worlds, in fact.
The hardbacks will give you new ways to play the game, via the Battleplans and Time of War sheets. However, their other purpose is to give you the story behind Age of Sigmar. The background behind Age of Sigmar is at least as important as the actual gaming system – and by this, I mean it is important to the structure of the game as a whole. It might not be important to you personally, as you may find mechanics to be the over-riding component necessary to you in the hobby. I know players who, when they get a new Codex, turn straight to the army list and it may be months before they read the background chapters, if at all. Age of Sigmar, as it stands, may not be for them.
The hardback releases (and those from the Black Library) are the direct driving force behind Age of Sigmar and, I imagine, always will be. If you are not into the storyline, then Age of Sigmar may not be for you. But the free rules are not a trick – the storyline is a fundamental component of the game.
I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of free/paid rules on the part of someone offering a complaint. Free rules are always going to be the baseline, there so that there is no barrier of entry to playing the game if you already have models or just want to dip your toes and try it out. Physical rules are there as a premium product, big and colourful for collectors who want the story and art.
My bigger issue with this is, the almost exclusive focus on drip feeding new rules and keeping information on the setting to an absolute minimum. We don't know the world, the realms. We don't know how the races have changed except for the name-swaps and we most importantly don't even know what books are coming. Will I see a book about Aelfs within the next 2 weeks, or 2 years? I don't know. Nobody knows, and so nobody can tell me. It is one thing to be able to step in on a new world at the ground level, another thing entirely for that new world to receive no support for the existing fanbase to help everybody find their footing.
“AOS is still for simpletons & peons. Enjoy your crappy game.” This is an actual quote from a forum. The level of disrespect present in this comment towards other people (forget other gamers, people in general), is simply breath taking. It would be nice to simply assume he is a maladjusted teenager but, unfortunately, he seems to be in his thirties.
If the guy who said it does not really believe this, then he was being disingenuous at best. If he really does believe what he says, then he is a moron, with no room in his tiny, tiny world for anything other than his own point of view. I can imagine he spends most of his time in a state of bliss.
Offence is never given, only taken. Yes the guy who said this was being a jerk, but you don't have to point it out and jump up and down with added personal insults. You took insult, and you're far more ruffled than he is. Just like, be excellent to one another.
It is just stupid to stack models on top of one another Yes it is. But it does not happen in Age of Sigmar.
This is something that cropped up early on forums when Age of Sigmar was released, the idea that models could be placed on top of the bases of others to help with getting more models into combat, and it seems to have stuck.
I need to be clear on this point: Nowhere in the rules of Age of Sigmar does it suggest you can do this. Nowhere.
But, someone might say, it doesn’t say you can’t!
The trouble with this line of thinking is that it also does not say you can’t jam two dice up your opponent’s nostrils, then punch him in the ears so they blast out of his nose. The writers at GW do presume a measure of common sense when writing rules. And I do not think that is completely unreasonable.
Bases are ignored for the purposes of measuring ranges. That is all.
A little convoluted for an explanation, but we're in agreement. Nowhere in the rules does it say you should stack your models. It just says bases don't count, but you have to be within range to attack and people take RAW and get confused how a swordsman can reach a flying bloodthirster with his 1" weapon when the 'thirster is 2" in and 3" high. Really, this is nitpicking and should just be shrugged off as such.
I am more concerned that I've had staff tell people to do the base stacking thing instead of just measuring from the base like nearly every other game on the market.
Sqorgar wrote: Honestly, I haven't read Robert E Howard in years, and when I did, I read through basically all his stuff in quick succession, so a lot of it is jumbled in my head. There was one where Conan visits a dead city with an eldritch horror stalking around, and I think the elephant guy in the tower was a god from beyond the stars. Honestly, Worms of the Earth was the only story I remembered the name of
It's been a while. I really should go back and reread all that stuff.
They're well worth reading again, I got my room-mate to pick up the complete Lovecraft works and hopefully the Howard works too. It's always great when you can share the things you love with the world!
Sqorgar wrote: When you've got dragon riding wizards shooting lightning bolts at orcs, it's high fantasy. If you ride a tornado into a magical land and go on adventures with a lion, tin man, and scarecrow, that's high fantasy. Low fantasy is stuff like the Elves and the Shoemaker, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or Preacher - stuff that largely takes place in the real world with fantastic elements.
The distinction between low, and high fantasy I feel is better explained not by abundance but by accessibility. A low fantasy world can contain dragons, it can contain wizards, it can contain orcs and lightning magic. It may even have a climatic combination of all three. If you see something like this on a weekly basis however, when these different tropes and themes become commonplace, that is where we transition from low to high fantasy. Another example would be to look at the Hobbit, with only a handful of elves and dwarves and a single wizard who doesn't use much magic as low fantasy, contrasting with Lord of the Rings with elven armies, a legion of robed wizard-like figures riding dragon-like creatures and more wizards than you can shake a staff at.
I'm sorry, but did you watch the same Hobbit movies I did? Desolation of Smaug, Battle of Five Armies?
HUGE Dragon laying waste to an entire city is low fantasy?
Can you even count the number of Elfs here? Is that what you call a "handful"?
How about Elfs jumping over Dorfs climbed on other Dorfs? Is that low fantasy?
He said to " look at the Hobbit" - looking is visual, as in a movie. If he had said to "consider what was described in the Hobbit", you might have a case.
He said to " look at the Hobbit" - looking is visual, as in a movie. If he had said to "consider what was described in the Hobbit", you might have a case.
AoS involves small bands of gods, demons, monsters and supernatural warriors whacking each other with swords, lightning, and so on, across a variety of elemental themes supernatural planes of existence, which are filled with huge magical artefacts that affect the combat action.
I don't see how that possibly can be seen as low fantasy.
To be fair, they think the Hobbit is low fantasy, despite things like the Desolation of Laketown and the Battle of Five Armies being high fantasy no matter how one looks at it.
Kilkrazy wrote:AoS involves small bands of gods, demons, monsters and supernatural warriors whacking each other with swords, lightning, and so on, across a variety of elemental themes supernatural planes of existence, which are filled with huge magical artefacts that affect the combat action.
I don't see how that possibly can be seen as low fantasy.
JohnHwangDD wrote:To be fair, they think the Hobbit is low fantasy, despite things like the Desolation of Laketown and the Battle of Five Armies being high fantasy no matter how one looks at it.
Oh come on man, I feel like you're missing the point on purpose this far in. You're the only person referring to, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, who continues to bring up The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug and implies other people refer to The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies. Everybody else has simply said The Hobbit. The classic childrens fairy-tale that was read to us in bed by our parents.
Kilkrazy wrote: AoS involves small bands of gods, demons, monsters and supernatural warriors whacking each other with swords, lightning, and so on, across a variety of elemental themes supernatural planes of existence, which are filled with huge magical artefacts that affect the combat action.
I don't see how that possibly can be seen as low fantasy.
I thought you didn't play fluff?
Play a game of Empire vs Bretonnia with few magical units, across a normal looking segment of the realm of life (these realms are infinite after all) and choose only Inspiring, Deadly or Sinister for the terrian pieces and you have a low fantasy game.
I don't play fluff. It still exists, though, and the fluff says there is no world, but a collection of magic elemental realms, etc, being attacked by immortal warriors souls bound into gold armour, and so on.
I'm not interested in playing a skirmish with 20 Brettonians against 30 Empires. I think the rules of AoS are very limited and dull.
I know right? The dwarves have a really solid shield and spear wall ready to receive a charge that couldn't have broken them, instead the elves jump into the charge with their lighter armour and no shields ready to get butchered.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't play fluff. It still exists, though, and the fluff says there is no world, but a collection of magic elemental realms, etc, being attacked by immortal warriors souls bound into gold armour, and so on.
I'm not interested in playing a skirmish with 20 Brettonians against 30 Empires. I think the rules of AoS are very limited and dull.
Lol, love them changing goal posts. What point are you even trying to make?
I tell you the distinction between low and high fantasy exists in the fluff.
You tell me you don't play the fluff you play a wargame.
I tell you you can play a low or high fantasy wargame with Warhammer and Age of Sigmar Rules.
You tell me you don't want to because of the fluff??
Age of Sigmar is a High Fantasy setting. No one is going to argue anything else. Your initial point that the Warhammer has bounced back and forth between High and Low because of the game rules is just nonsense though.
Hummm do not know the numbers and really do not care... sorry to be blunt but whats it to me if in the other corner of the world no one plays, and if me and my friends have fun with it? I know I Know its to evaluate the acceptance of AOS and to see if the misconceptions are actually true and a real obstacle to players actually enjoy the game.
Let me just say that its a new game style and it will take time to take off, it may even never do but as long as Im having fun today Im happy with it. I think the different style will cater to different audience but unlike mass battle games your investment on AoS will be a small fraction of what it used to be with WFB.
SO yeah different and much more flexible game that will not cost you an organ, so less investment with equal amounts of fun its all good if you ask me. I can even now have loads of different factions with not much stress and as for my big WFB armies well I fragmented them in small themes and will have loads of options and forces with AOS scrolls.
I think the big misconception here is that this will replace WFB... will never do, its a different thing altogether so enjoy for what it is and stop comparing with a different game, I know I did and its the best thing that happened to my WFB forces.
NAVARRO wrote: I think the big misconception here is that this will replace WFB... will never do, its a different thing altogether so enjoy for what it is and stop comparing with a different game
This is not Warhammer 9th edition, we know that, but this is very much a replacement for WHFB and so people simply will compare them and aren't wrong for doing so.
I mean they literally blew up WHFB in order to get AoS for khorn's sake.
jonolikespie wrote: This is not Warhammer 9th edition, we know that, but this is very much a replacement for WHFB and so people simply will compare them and aren't wrong for doing so.
But it doesn't accomplish anything because AoS is not WHFB, wasn't intended to be WHFB, and will never be WHFB. It's like resenting an orange because it isn't an apple... for, like, ever. You may not like oranges, but the anger is completely misplaced and useless. It's like WHFB fans entered the 5 stages of grief and got stuck on anger. Time to move to bargaining, guys.
Okay, before I start I should point out that I'm one of those who hates AOS and will never play it. I also was never into WHFB even slightly, but still feel for its fans mistreated by GW. I don't normally come into this forum, was kinda funneled here this time by another topic, but since this is specifically directed at those who have it out for AOS I figure it's perfectly kosher for me to respond.
Thing is, my hate is amplified because of a few big things:
1) GW's behavior with the whole thing has been appalling (like with the way they killed off WHFB when it uses the same models mostly so they could've kept it around and not banned it from being played in the stores and making the horrid joke rules for units just to make them embarrassing to use) and it represents all their worst aspects. To support AOS is to support that.
2) A lot of the problems really aren't matters of opinion, personal preference or anything of the like, they're just straight-up mistakes and missteps with AOS.
3) People have been speculating that 40k might go down this route. If AOS gets popular they'll give the same treatment to 40k and then that's my hobby dead right there! I can't put up with this crap and I'm not interested in any of the other popular wargames out there, plus it seems like it would be a lot harder than it sounds to just keep playing 7E. It's not a matter of "live and let live" so much as "kill or be killed" with this...
Moreover, at least a couple of the points in the OP are off-base...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MongooseMatt wrote: There is no balance in Age of Sigmar There is, but it is in your hands.
Even if we leave the ‘dick issue’ to one side (basically, don’t be one, and have as much consideration for your opponent’s fun as your own), there are now a handful of points systems available for AoS, and they are all community-made. As time goes on, they will become more accurate and more balanced. They are there and available for your use right now.
It is no secret that you don’t have to go far on a gaming forum to see people complaining about points imbalances in Fantasy Battle or 40k, and in these rants someone always bemoans the fact that GW does not engage in community-led pointing for units. After all, if thousands of people are submitting results, and points costs are updated, they will be far more accurate, right?
Well, that is what you have, right now, for Age of Sigmar. What is more, if you do not agree with one system (a certain points value for a unit will not be agreeable for everyone, you can be sure of that), then there are already others to try.
If competitive gaming is your thing, tournament organisers are now free to pick the points systems they feel work for them best – or simply come up with their own…
Given time, what can be more balanced than that?
Having an actual baseline to start with.
At least with 40k 7th Edition as bad as its balance can be at times, you have a standard system and only maybe a handful of things MUST be fixed to work.
If you can't agree on what house-rules and fan stuff you want to use in 40k 7E, you can generally still play the game because you have the defaults to fall back on, even if it won't be optimal.
If you can't agree on what house-rules and fan stuff you want to use in Age of Sigmar, you're screwed! You probably can't play at all...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MongooseMatt wrote: But they could have added a points system, and all those ‘narrative’ gamers could have just ignored them – then everyone would have got what they wanted This is true (leaving aside the benefits of community-pointing for a moment). However, there is another problem and, speaking as a games designer, this is a very real one.
If you put a points-based system in, 99% of all players will use it to the exclusion of all else. Yes, they could just ignore points. But they won’t. Gamers just won’t.
How a game presents itself has a direct effect on how it is played, generally speaking. And this, I know, was a very real issue for the guys at GW in the past. During the days of 3rd Edition 40k, to cite an example, the vast majority of games played used the Dawn Assault mission because, for some reason, people had got it into their heads that it was the ‘fairest’ mission. They also tended to default to 1,500 points.
The problem for the designers is that they have all these other types of battles, and worlds, and models to show you, but if you are just playing 1,500 point Dawn Assault games, you are not getting any of it. You are missing out on a massive amount.
If you are the games designer responsible, that is a big issue. You are creating all this wonderful material, and none of it is getting used. It also means the game is going to stagnate – at some point, you will get bored with Dawn Assault, but if you have been conditioned to think that this is the only way of playing 40k, you may not be looking for alternatives.
I know this sounds ridiculous. But it is a very real thing, and it is very common.
By taking the points out of Age of Sigmar (and by the way they present scenarios), there is no ‘standard’ way of playing. You are being forced out of the comfort zone, and this is where the designers want you. They want you to experience Warhammer in a variety of formats that will keep you gaming for, well, forever.
For one thing, as mentioned earlier in this thread 99% of players using it probably just means it's that necessary/desired.
But even putting that aside, think of it this way:
Imagine the whole group of players
Now take out the ones that are willing to ignore the points as needed - They obviously aren't affected by this, they would've tried it anyway.
Now take out the ones who would either house-rule points back in or just plain give up - They obviously aren't getting the benefit of no points either.
Now take out the ones who tried it without points and didn't like it for whatever reason - You could try to paint it as them getting the benefit because they at least tried it, but not in the slightest, it just sucked for them, they aren't benefiting from it.
Now finally you have the ones who wouldn't have tried it otherwise, did now and liked it - These are the only ones who benefit from this.
Giving the benefit for that least, teeny tiny minority absolutely does NOT outweigh the harm to the other groups (including the ones who are already willing to play without points, they might also play WITH points sometimes or at least appreciate the option of doing so!) and that is the plain and simple FACT of the matter.
There are of course alternative balancing mechanics, in which case you can replace "points" with "balancing mechanics" in this part and I'll still be making the same point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MongooseMatt wrote: So, if I have a model with a 12” base, no one can fight me, right? Well, if you go down that road yes, sort of.
If you meet someone with a base like that, have a quick chat and sort it out. All it requires is the application of common sense. I am pretty sure this is why this is not in the rules sheet – the designers could not conceive of anyone seriously trying this loop hole and, to be frank, I agree with them.
They are not writing a set of rules designed to be resilient to all kinds of potential abuse. The assumption is made that both players want to have a good time and will play fairly. Now, you might disagree with that approach, but this is where they are coming from. They are expecting you to play your opponent, not to play the rules.
To put it another way, if someone places a model with a 12” base that makes it impossible to attack, they have clearly done it on purpose for that specific reason, and refuse to budge on any accommodation… walk away. Seriously, life is way too short, and if they have done that, it really will be the least of the issues you will experience while playing them.
I’ll put it yet another way – making a base like that would be like making yourself invulnerable by glitching yourself into a wall in Battlefield or Call of Duty. Yes, the ‘rules’ permit it. But what have you actually gained other than ruining the enjoyment of other people?
(Incidentally, if you think glitching into walls is legitimate, then Games Workshop games overall are probably not for you).
Here's the thing: Sure this stuff can't ever be perfect but a robust ruleset needs to TRY!
Yeah there are always gonna be exploits but when it's something this obvious and easy to do it remains a problem.
I might be with you on this if it was something that required incredibly obscure and obtuse dickery to do but it doesn't.
Same goes for the points thing, sure nobody will say that 20 Bloodthirsters are a match for 50 Goblins. But exactly how many are a match for 50 Goblins? Let's say it's 2 Bloodthirsters (I don't know) but the Chaos player brings 3. He's not trying to be a dick, he just thought that would be a fairly solid matchup and he was wrong because he didn't have an external guideline to tell him otherwise. Now he not only stomps the Goblins player but also has Sudden Death on his side despite having the advantage.
That's the thing with AOS, you don't have to be a powergaming jerk to make the rules collapse in on themselves...
Not to mention that powergamer types can pile on a popular exploit in far greater numbers than can be dismissed with "I won't play with you, you're just being a jerk!", it can be hard to tell what IS an exploit and good rulesets generally try to patch these things up...
jonolikespie wrote: This is not Warhammer 9th edition, we know that, but this is very much a replacement for WHFB and so people simply will compare them and aren't wrong for doing so.
But it doesn't accomplish anything because AoS is not WHFB, wasn't intended to be WHFB, and will never be WHFB. It's like resenting an orange because it isn't an apple... for, like, ever. You may not like oranges, but the anger is completely misplaced and useless. It's like WHFB fans entered the 5 stages of grief and got stuck on anger. Time to move to bargaining, guys.
To go off of your analogy, it's more like someone selling you apples for thirty years. Then one day the shop owner removes all the apples from the store, burns down the orchid, and tells you that you need to start liking oranges. Because that's what they will be selling from now on.
It might be a little silly to resent the oranges, but you can certainly point out that you don't want the oranges, you want the apples back.
And it doesn't feel that silly to resent the person trying to shove those oranges down your throat when you try to convince the shop owner to sell those apples again.
Or most confusingly of all, perhaps both apples and oranges could be sold together?
I feel that if AoS was released as an addition, not a replacement. People would not care quite so much. There would still be people who dislike the game based off of the rules, or the fluff, or the prices, but they would not have the same level of ill feelings towards it for destroying something they loved to make room for it. I mean, it's not like GW doesn't have two timelines going for 30K/40K. They could easily do the same thing with the fantasy version and have the mass battle game in one timeline and the skirmish game in another.
Now, before you say I hate the game, I actually don't. I think it has flaws, I think it needs an unfortunate amount of house ruling which makes it hard for gaming outside of close knit groups, etc.
But I do enjoy it for what it is, a good game for beginners or times when you want to play around a bit more. There are times when a really tight rule set is a wonderful thing, but there are times when a looser rule set allows you to have a little more fun.
I've introduced a few people to AoS who will likely never get into Warmachine, Hordes, Infinity, X-wing, or even 40K, but will sit down with me to play a quick game with basic rules and a small amount of figures.
To go off of your analogy, it's more like someone selling you apples for thirty years. Then one day the shop owner removes all the apples from the store, burns down the orchid, and tells you that you need to start liking oranges. Because that's what they will be selling from now on.
And that happens in the real world. Things change. My favorite restaurant in the world closed one day without notice. We just show up for lunch and it no longer existed. It was eventually replaced by a Wing Zone, for crying out loud (which didn't last long, and it is now a cell phone store). The closest franchise is over two hours away. So yeah. gak happens. The problem with capitalism is that being a fan of something isn't enough to save it. Ask Firefly fans.
It might be a little silly to resent the oranges, but you can certainly point out that you don't want the oranges, you want the apples back.
Is that likely to happen? Do you think Games Workshop is going to go, "Whoops. Our bad. Here's WHFB back."? Because I don't think they'll do that. If AoS fails, you still won't get WHFB back. It's dead. It's shuffled off this mortal coil. It's playing for the choir invisible. It's not sleeping man. It's dead.
And it doesn't feel that silly to resent the person trying to shove those oranges down your throat when you try to convince the shop owner to sell those apples again.
Or most confusingly of all, perhaps both apples and oranges could be sold together?
Because capitalism doesn't work that way. If there's some reason why apples can no longer be sold, then apples will no longer be sold. Period. We do not know the sales data or creative decisions that were involved in killing WHFB, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't just "Let's piss off our fans by killing this wildly successful and profitable game".
Now, before you say I hate the game, I actually don't. I think it has flaws, I think it needs an unfortunate amount of house ruling which makes it hard for gaming outside of close knit groups, etc.
But I do enjoy it for what it is, a good game for beginners or times when you want to play around a bit more. There are times when a really tight rule set is a wonderful thing, but there are times when a looser rule set allows you to have a little more fun.
I've introduced a few people to AoS who will likely never get into Warmachine, Hordes, Infinity, X-wing, or even 40K, but will sit down with me to play a quick game with basic rules and a small amount of figures.
I've had similar success. My wife won't touch Warmachine with a ten foot pole, but she enjoyed AoS. And my kids (aged 7 and 10) can play AoS - not well, but they can understand the rules - while I'm not sure I could explain Warmachine's cover/concealment/camouflage to them without their deciding they'd rather watch cartoons. That's not to say that AoS is for non-gamers - the hobby aspect is as complicated as anything else, and between players who know what they are doing, it is a very different experience - but the 4 pages of rules was a brilliant idea and really does have a chance of gaining an audience where WHFB couldn't.
The one place where AoS fails is that the WHFB fans (or GW haters who wanted another excuse to complain) won't forgive it. And that's not AoS's fault. In this forum, every aspect of AoS has been criticized to high heaven, and as it is defended or insulted, eventually people move on. But the one element that remains six months later is that it replaced WHFB. Every other argument has been exhausted and is now ignored, but that feeling of "betrayal" never goes away. And it should. It's time.
NAVARRO wrote: Hummm do not know the numbers and really do not care... sorry to be blunt but whats it to me if in the other corner of the world no one plays, and if me and my friends have fun with it? I know I Know its to evaluate the acceptance of AOS and to see if the misconceptions are actually true and a real obstacle to players actually enjoy the game.
Let me just say that its a new game style and it will take time to take off, it may even never do but as long as Im having fun today Im happy with it. I think the different style will cater to different audience but unlike mass battle games your investment on AoS will be a small fraction of what it used to be with WFB.
SO yeah different and much more flexible game that will not cost you an organ, so less investment with equal amounts of fun its all good if you ask me. I can even now have loads of different factions with not much stress and as for my big WFB armies well I fragmented them in small themes and will have loads of options and forces with AOS scrolls.
I think the big misconception here is that this will replace WFB... will never do, its a different thing altogether so enjoy for what it is and stop comparing with a different game, I know I did and its the best thing that happened to my WFB forces.
I really agree with lots you say! AoS has been like an eye opener for me where all of a sudden every single model I've ever admired but was outside of my "army" now has the potential to be bought, painted up and played with straight away. I'm blowing dust of random minis and getting them on the table for the first time ever (my BFSP set for example) and now instead of collecting just 1 army it's now 4 coming on 5.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't play fluff. It still exists, though, and the fluff says there is no world, but a collection of magic elemental realms, etc, being attacked by immortal warriors souls bound into gold armour, and so on.
I'm not interested in playing a skirmish with 20 Brettonians against 30 Empires. I think the rules of AoS are very limited and dull.
Lol, love them changing goal posts. What point are you even trying to make?
...
The point I am trying to make is that AoS is a high fantasy concept game -- which apparently you now accept -- and the rules are rubbish for low fantasy.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't play fluff. It still exists, though, and the fluff says there is no world, but a collection of magic elemental realms, etc, being attacked by immortal warriors souls bound into gold armour, and so on.
I'm not interested in playing a skirmish with 20 Brettonians against 30 Empires. I think the rules of AoS are very limited and dull.
Lol, love them changing goal posts. What point are you even trying to make?
...
The point I am trying to make is that AoS is a high fantasy concept game -- which apparently you now accept -- and the rules are rubbish for low fantasy.
Lol, when did I say it wasn't high fantasy? I said the rules of Warhammer and AoS have no impact on if the setting is High or Low fantasy. And they don't.
No, capitalism works because companies find things people want and then sell that product to those people. Prior to AoS being announced I don't think I ever saw anyone on these forums saying that they would like a game with no points system and no restrictions like 40k's unbound.
As well, us people in this threat and the others like it 'hating' on AoS are part of the capitalist system too, we are expressing our displeasure with the product on offer. In the real world companies take notice of that because they want to please people in order to get their money. You can forgive us then if we make the mistake of thinking a company as backwards as GW might take notice and, dare I say, change too.
Isn't this why KoW is gaining players (ie market share... Capitalism)?
This was a well written post of "why I like AoS," that now has 8 pages of ire.
Here's what it boils down to IMO The cost of producing the model, packaging and shipping is minute compared to the cost of content generation. It costs sooooooo much more to write good rules, with great illustrations and generate new models, than it does to physically produce them. IMO, despite Jervis Johnson's preamble in the defense of AoS this is a corporate cost cutting tool... Alone. This company cares about 1 thing MAKING MONEY. They've done the math, and weighed the costs. They aren't stupid they just don't give two gaks about what you do with their product after you buy it. They realized they could sell more models, and cut content costs. They did it. It's just shrewd business. However, they will find in my opinion again, that as KoW cuts into their market share, GW will realize that some model lines that have not crossed over to KoW are not selling and must be cut. It is only In this feedback loop, will y'all get your game back.
I really agree with lots you say! AoS has been like an eye opener for me where all of a sudden every single model I've ever admired but was outside of my "army" now has the potential to be bought, painted up and played with straight away. I'm blowing dust of random minis and getting them on the table for the first time ever (my BFSP set for example) and now instead of collecting just 1 army it's now 4 coming on 5.
I love it! :-)
Indeed, and because now numbers are low you can actually have lots of small forces that are totally viable... also you can have 4 players on the table for a fast quick game without investing many hours in playing that battle. The game downsized and got more flexible & simple which means this is both a great entry point for new people and a quick thrill for the vets.
I may add that If you own a vast force fear not because when you start splitting those regiments in themed forces you will actually be adding more little things and extending you hobby experience... FOr example on my wfb force I had a respectable 25 block of black orcs but I divided them in 3 10 man regiments for AoS which means I need to get 5 more and convert 6 to standart,musician... so yep depends how you take the changes.
doktor_g wrote:Isn't this why KoW is gaining players (ie market share... Capitalism)?
This was a well written post of "why I like AoS," that now has 8 pages of ire.
Here's what it boils down to IMO The cost of producing the model, packaging and shipping is minute compared to the cost of content generation. It costs sooooooo much more to write good rules, with great illustrations and generate new models, than it does to physically produce them. IMO, despite Jervis Johnson's preamble in the defense of AoS this is a corporate cost cutting tool... Alone. This company cares about 1 thing MAKING MONEY. They've done the math, and weighed the costs. They aren't stupid they just don't give two gaks about what you do with their product after you buy it. They realized they could sell more models, and cut content costs. They did it. It's just shrewd business. However, they will find in my opinion again, that as KoW cuts into their market share, GW will realize that some model lines that have not crossed over to KoW are not selling and must be cut. It is only In this feedback loop, will y'all get your game back.
I believe what was really popular and taking a big chunk of market share was skirmish games and GW went that route... I think its a risk but I collected lots of other skirmish games... guess what I can now do that with GW main game too. Its good for everyone except for those that really want to get stuck with new stuff for their classic WFB ranges. Like you say either they move to Mantic ( good for mantic and massbattle fans) or they convert their forces to Aos, because unprecedentedly GW did supplied all rules for Free. That was a huge thing in GW history and a clear sign they know that they are taking a huge risk by changing all back to skirmish levels.
As a wfb fan I lost my big chunky armies, I could either grief that, as I did for a week or two, but I must confess that my decision of going AoS refreshed my love for my factions and opened so many new opportunities with other factions that it has been a very positive outcome for my GW forces.
You can now play and enjoy all of the GW hobby with such a small money and time investment with the free rules/low model count that its a great chance to get your friends on board and even your young kids.
Has your Regiment game been obliterated? yes. Your fluff took a bad turn? in some places yes. Is the game for noobs? errr... not a fan of that comment because if I was to listen what other grumpy people with a weird baggage say I would not even be in this hobby in the first place. Is this game broken for competition levels? I believe so and that would be interesting if GW cooked up a AoSv2 with comp rules.
All in all AoS is Gw jab at a growing skirmish marked and for that to prevail they had to cut WFB... sucks in some parts but if you are willing to adapt its a HUGE refresh for your long dead projects.
I kind of a don't get the logic between bad things won't happen, because people don't want to be dicks to others, and the 99% people will use points, if points exist. If people can be dicks and there is no way to limit how dick they can be, then they will be max dicks.
also you can have 4 players on the table for a fast quick game without investing many hours in playing that battle.
are you counting the few hours 4 people have to spend talking which house rule set will they use and which unit combination works how and what unit combinations are ok and which are not, and what to do if 2 are ok and 1 is not etc
also you can have 4 players on the table for a fast quick game without investing many hours in playing that battle.
are you counting the few hours 4 people have to spend talking which house rule set will they use and which unit combination works how and what unit combinations are ok and which are not, and what to do if 2 are ok and 1 is not etc
Are you talking from personal experience here? Because my last game was a 4 player and it took a minute to decide the power level.
There were 4 people who wanted to play. We asked each player what collection they had brought to the store, one player only had a handful of Ogor models so we used that as a benchmark for everyone else. We counted up the Ogor wounds and used that as a ready reckoner for everyone else.
The game was incredibly close and came down to single Beastman Bray Shaman fighting an Ogor Tyrant. If the shaman had successfully scored 3 mortal wounds from the final arcane bolt they would have won (the tyrant had 3 wounds remaining), instead they only scored one and was then beaten to a bloody pulp by the tyrant
Yep. But that's not the case for every battle. The main thing to remember with Age of Sigmar is that each game is bespoke. If one player had been goblins for example we would have allowed them a few more units to balance.
Next time I play a 4 player I plan to use the Convergence of Fate Battleplan which has no model or wound limit but allows the player with the strongest force each battle-round to be ganged up upon by the other three.
Here's what it boils down to IMO The cost of producing the model, packaging and shipping is minute compared to the cost of content generation. It costs sooooooo much more to write good rules, with great illustrations and generate new models, than it does to physically produce them. IMO, despite Jervis Johnson's preamble in the defense of AoS this is a corporate cost cutting tool... Alone. This company cares about 1 thing MAKING MONEY. They've done the math, and weighed the costs. They aren't stupid they just don't give two gaks about what you do with their product after you buy it. They realized they could sell more models, and cut content costs. They did it. It's just shrewd business. However, they will find in my opinion again, that as KoW cuts into their market share, GW will realize that some model lines that have not crossed over to KoW are not selling and must be cut. It is only In this feedback loop, will y'all get your game back.
I'm really sick of this cynical "GW doesn't care about you, only your wallet" argument. GW is a publicly traded company and by law, they are beholden to their shareholders - not their fans. I haven't been a GW fan for very long but I think they do care about their fans - I think it shows in a lot of the decisions they make, like the painting tutorials they put up on Warhammer TV, or their painting line with the myriad of colors broken into base/layer/highlight shades, or the high quality of sculpt and plastic they use in their - let's face it - jaw dropping models. GW wants you to have the premium tabletop experience and every decision I've seen indicates that they are willing to go to great lengths to deliver it, even to the most novice gamer.
However, this doesn't extend to how much it costs to have that experience. GW is expensive - often too expensive - but they have quality products. You have to pay for the experience, but you can tell that a lot of attention went into creating it. GW does make decisions that favor their shareholders, which they have to, but within that constraint, GW still produces the best models on the market (or some of the best models, depending on your aesthetic preferences and/or hatred of GW) and still remains the industry leader in the field.
And as far as giving feedback to their fans. I think they are terrified of their fans, and after months of arguing in favor of AoS to GW haters, I understand that completely. Hell, Warhammer TV asked for tutorial suggestions and even that became a war of who could insult GW the most when they knew someone was listening. Every comment made by a GW employee (or ex-employee) over the past two decades is scrutinized in the most cynical, hateful way as proof positive that GW secretly likes raping people for fun. As a fan, it is frustrating to not have even an inkling of an idea of what's going on in GWHQ, but I get it. They don't hate their fans. They are scared of them. They let their products do the talking for them, which I guess they think is enough. And it almost is.
And as far as giving feedback to their fans. I think they are terrified of their fans, and after months of arguing in favor of AoS to GW haters, I understand that completely. Hell, Warhammer TV asked for tutorial suggestions and even that became a war of who could insult GW the most when they knew someone was listening. Every comment made by a GW employee (or ex-employee) over the past two decades is scrutinized in the most cynical, hateful way as proof positive that GW secretly likes raping people for fun. As a fan, it is frustrating to not have even an inkling of an idea of what's going on in GWHQ, but I get it. They don't hate their fans. They are scared of them. They let their products do the talking for them, which I guess they think is enough. And it almost is.
Sometimes I think that they may also regret growing to be such a big (relatively) public company. All the requirements that come with that - need for mass production and large sales, restrictions on what and when to release etc - may be felt as a burden from some of the current staff (the old guys have stated this enough times already). Certainly someone dreams of the times when they were a smaller, tidier firm, when they could just release a model without having to bear the scrutiny of the ENTIRETY of the Geek Kingdom. The times when they could worry less about meeting a given quota, certain demands, working with a vast network of retailers etc...You know, the good old times
Swastakowey wrote: Well they didn't have to cut anything. A new set of rules to co exist with Warhammer would have been more popular than a replacement.
That is your understanding and to an extent mine too but its neither you or me who calls the shots here. GW over the years seems inclined to kill any game they consider its cannibalizing their main 2 games. Happened to specialists and now WFB in favour of AoS... I can see same thing happening to 40k if sales get to the point WFB did.
So yes the transition could have been done differently and smoother for all parties involved but at the end of the day they decided not to.
Personally speaking if wfb was still around I would delay my entry into Aos just because I was already too involved with Wfb. So that and the fact they seem to want a full reboot and fresh start of a license may be some of the reasons for this blunt cut.
The entry cost is quite harsh and castrating if you need to buy all dexes or rulebooks I mean I refuse to go that route and thats why I stick to just a few armies. With Aos now I have access to all past armies scrolls and that will probably change in the future with the new factions coming, but for now Im quite content and would embrace 40k more if they supplied rules for free too. The bloated rules and dexes will strangulate any game regardless of how good the game is.
Sqorgar wrote: I'm really sick of this cynical "GW doesn't care about you, only your wallet" argument. GW is a publicly traded company and by law, they are beholden to their shareholders - not their fans. I haven't been a GW fan for very long but I think they do care about their fans - I think it shows in a lot of the decisions they make, like the painting tutorials they put up on Warhammer TV, or their painting line with the myriad of colors broken into base/layer/highlight shades, or the high quality of sculpt and plastic they use in their - let's face it - jaw dropping models. GW wants you to have the premium tabletop experience and every decision I've seen indicates that they are willing to go to great lengths to deliver it, even to the most novice gamer.
However, this doesn't extend to how much it costs to have that experience. GW is expensive - often too expensive - but they have quality products. You have to pay for the experience, but you can tell that a lot of attention went into creating it. GW does make decisions that favor their shareholders, which they have to, but within that constraint, GW still produces the best models on the market (or some of the best models, depending on your aesthetic preferences and/or hatred of GW) and still remains the industry leader in the field.
And as far as giving feedback to their fans. I think they are terrified of their fans, and after months of arguing in favor of AoS to GW haters, I understand that completely. Hell, Warhammer TV asked for tutorial suggestions and even that became a war of who could insult GW the most when they knew someone was listening. Every comment made by a GW employee (or ex-employee) over the past two decades is scrutinized in the most cynical, hateful way as proof positive that GW secretly likes raping people for fun. As a fan, it is frustrating to not have even an inkling of an idea of what's going on in GWHQ, but I get it. They don't hate their fans. They are scared of them. They let their products do the talking for them, which I guess they think is enough. And it almost is.
I'm sorry but perhaps the reason you think GW cares about their fans is exactly because you haven't been a GW fan for long. We all started out loving the company once, just like you. But you know what, there is only so much that we as fans can put up with.
"Gamesday is a place where our fans can participate in their favourite part of the GW hobby, buying things from Games Workshop."
A somewhat infamous quote now, but that is what GW's head of IP told a courtroom while on a stand. How about "We sell toys to kids." Kirby's own words, also not very encouraging. How about the fact that as an Aussie I have to pay the same stupidly higher prices even though the vale of the Aussie dollar shot up a few years back and was almost on par with the US dollar? How about the blatantly anti consumer practices of enforcing embragos so I can't buy from America, pay the shipping myself and get something cheaper? There are plenty of reasons to believe GW don't think highly of their customers.
As for the claim that GW still produces the best models on the market as some kind of justification for the price... that's highly subjective. I think Infinity's models make GW's look like toys, but I know some people argue that because GW's are multi pose they are better. If you are talking models as a whole though, and not tabletop wargaming models Tamya kits blow GWs away in every category for half the price (a third if you are using Oz prices). I'd argue that these days GW are nothing special in the modeling department, they just have a large catalog.
I also saw the Warhammer TV thing too, and I saw the jokes about 'marketing 101' and 'market research' made in the thread. You know why people make those jokes at GW's expense? Because they are frustrated with GW and want them to change for the better. Seriously, wouldn't you like to know what is coming more than a week in advance? Wouldn't you prefer GW asked you what kinds of things you wanted so they could make those?
Beginning to think that playing games of AoS without a comp system is like magic-eye pictures - you either can, or you can't.
Like, "I don't know, I just can" can, and "can't even comprehend how to start going about it", can't.
Sqorgar wrote: I'm really sick of this cynical "GW doesn't care about you, only your wallet" argument. GW is a publicly traded company and by law, they are beholden to their shareholders - not their fans. I haven't been a GW fan for very long but I think they do care about their fans - I think it shows in a lot of the decisions they make, like the painting tutorials they put up on Warhammer TV, or their painting line with the myriad of colors broken into base/layer/highlight shades, or the high quality of sculpt and plastic they use in their - let's face it - jaw dropping models. GW wants you to have the premium tabletop experience and every decision I've seen indicates that they are willing to go to great lengths to deliver it, even to the most novice gamer.
However, this doesn't extend to how much it costs to have that experience. GW is expensive - often too expensive - but they have quality products. You have to pay for the experience, but you can tell that a lot of attention went into creating it. GW does make decisions that favor their shareholders, which they have to, but within that constraint, GW still produces the best models on the market (or some of the best models, depending on your aesthetic preferences and/or hatred of GW) and still remains the industry leader in the field.
And as far as giving feedback to their fans. I think they are terrified of their fans, and after months of arguing in favor of AoS to GW haters, I understand that completely. Hell, Warhammer TV asked for tutorial suggestions and even that became a war of who could insult GW the most when they knew someone was listening. Every comment made by a GW employee (or ex-employee) over the past two decades is scrutinized in the most cynical, hateful way as proof positive that GW secretly likes raping people for fun. As a fan, it is frustrating to not have even an inkling of an idea of what's going on in GWHQ, but I get it. They don't hate their fans. They are scared of them. They let their products do the talking for them, which I guess they think is enough. And it almost is.
I'm sorry but perhaps the reason you think GW cares about their fans is exactly because you haven't been a GW fan for long. We all started out loving the company once, just like you. But you know what, there is only so much that we as fans can put up with.
"Gamesday is a place where our fans can participate in their favourite part of the GW hobby, buying things from Games Workshop."
A somewhat infamous quote now, but that is what GW's head of IP told a courtroom while on a stand. How about "We sell toys to kids." Kirby's own words, also not very encouraging. How about the fact that as an Aussie I have to pay the same stupidly higher prices even though the vale of the Aussie dollar shot up a few years back and was almost on par with the US dollar? How about the blatantly anti consumer practices of enforcing embragos so I can't buy from America, pay the shipping myself and get something cheaper? There are plenty of reasons to believe GW don't think highly of their customers.
As for the claim that GW still produces the best models on the market as some kind of justification for the price... that's highly subjective. I think Infinity's models make GW's look like toys, but I know some people argue that because GW's are multi pose they are better. If you are talking models as a whole though, and not tabletop wargaming models Tamya kits blow GWs away in every category for half the price (a third if you are using Oz prices). I'd argue that these days GW are nothing special in the modeling department, they just have a large catalog.
I also saw the Warhammer TV thing too, and I saw the jokes about 'marketing 101' and 'market research' made in the thread. You know why people make those jokes at GW's expense? Because they are frustrated with GW and want them to change for the better. Seriously, wouldn't you like to know what is coming more than a week in advance? Wouldn't you prefer GW asked you what kinds of things you wanted so they could make those?
It's not just "Haterz Hatin" that makes us think GW doesn't care. It's GW's own words and actions that do.
GW comes off even worse when compared to other companies and how they treat their fans. Corvus Belli will send people and prizes if you have a group over 30 people. PP recently asked on their forum (because they're not scared of having one) what people wanted from their magazine. A month before that they asked what people would do to improve the game. Shortly after that a massive errata was published.
GW making high quality models isn't enough to make me think they actually care. Especially not when compared to how they used to act.
And then seeing models like this make me not so sure the best models on the market thing is true.
Spoiler:
Edit: And AOS isn't really a skirmish game. You can use less models, but the game doesn't seem to do that particularly well. Nor massive battles either. It's sweet spot seems to be in the middle, like Warmachine size.
also you can have 4 players on the table for a fast quick game without investing many hours in playing that battle.
are you counting the few hours 4 people have to spend talking which house rule set will they use and which unit combination works how and what unit combinations are ok and which are not, and what to do if 2 are ok and 1 is not etc
Are you talking from personal experience here? Because my last game was a 4 player and it took a minute to decide the power level.
The games was fast and fun!
Same here, although it was only two players. We played a siege scenario and the guy had the Khorne starter box models. I said "how about. I use all the models I have, and you be the defender?" He said "ok" and we played a very close game where he had two models left at the end to take the win (the point of the scenario was that he was outnumbered and simply had to avoid being tabled after six turns).
I've never had the pre-game discussion take more than a few minutes.
I'm sorry but perhaps the reason you think GW cares about their fans is exactly because you haven't been a GW fan for long. We all started out loving the company once, just like you. But you know what, there is only so much that we as fans can put up with.
I get that, and I've been in that situation with other companies and other games in the past. I was a Sega fan. Ask me how that went. But when I decided I couldn't take it anymore, I moved my loyalties to another company that was better able to meet my needs as a gamer. The problem is, GW players don't move on. They keep playing, but they hate GW for it. I get that too. But I don't think the solution here is to just hate GW more loudly.
"Gamesday is a place where our fans can participate in their favourite part of the GW hobby, buying things from Games Workshop."
A somewhat infamous quote now, but that is what GW's head of IP told a courtroom while on a stand. How about "We sell toys to kids." Kirby's own words, also not very encouraging. How about the fact that as an Aussie I have to pay the same stupidly higher prices even though the vale of the Aussie dollar shot up a few years back and was almost on par with the US dollar? How about the blatantly anti consumer practices of enforcing embragos so I can't buy from America, pay the shipping myself and get something cheaper? There are plenty of reasons to believe GW don't think highly of their customers.
Some of those things are anti-consumer, and yeah, I think GW makes a lot of infuriating decisions - but I think that GW as a business is different than GW as a game creator, and I think GW as a game creator shows a lot of care and understanding for the players, even if GW as a business seems to undermine it at every turn. Seriously, if GW dropped the prices of everything 20% across the board, I think most complaints about GW would dry up over night. Yeah, the other stuff sucks, but it's the prices are where the root of the hatred really comes from.
Also, some of those things are just the low self esteem of gamers. "We sell toys to kids" Who cares?
As for the claim that GW still produces the best models on the market as some kind of justification for the price... that's highly subjective.
It absolutely is, but just like some people like Age of Sigmar, some people feel that GW's quality is worth the extra cost. I'm not sure I'm one of them. Truth be told, I'm not sure I can afford to maintain an interest in both Warmachine (where I play two armies, Khador and Cryx) and Age of Sigmar (where I play Stormcast), and when it comes down to it, I'm not sure which one I'd pick - and price is a HUGE concern. If AoS were the same price as Warmachine, it would win out easily, I think. I like the game better, the models are higher quality, and there's more variety in the types of experiences I can have with it. But I'm not going to sell a kidney to do so.
I think Infinity's models make GW's look like toys, but I know some people argue that because GW's are multi pose they are better. If you are talking models as a whole though, and not tabletop wargaming models Tamya kits blow GWs away in every category for half the price (a third if you are using Oz prices). I'd argue that these days GW are nothing special in the modeling department, they just have a large catalog.
I disagree. I think GW has some of the best models on the market. Not every model, but the really great models just floor me. I mean, I get the campaign books just to look at giant full page, glossy photos of the models they make. Nagash is jaw dropping. Even something like the Vampire Count Coven Throne with all that swirling stuff and the characters on it - I mean, holy crap. That's a fething model kit.
I also saw the Warhammer TV thing too, and I saw the jokes about 'marketing 101' and 'market research' made in the thread. You know why people make those jokes at GW's expense? Because they are frustrated with GW and want them to change for the better. Seriously, wouldn't you like to know what is coming more than a week in advance? Wouldn't you prefer GW asked you what kinds of things you wanted so they could make those?
ISure, I would love to know in advance. I tend to plan out my budget by the month, and knowing what's coming out helps me do that. But honestly, I don't need to buy them the week they come out. I have some room in my budget now, and I'm buying terrain kits that came out three months ago. And that's fine. As long as there isn't too much in the way of limited edition items that disappear after a month, I'll get them eventually. And having such a short time between having something announced and it coming out is great. It keeps the hype up, and honestly, I'll bet anything that it increases sales as you don't have much of a cooling down period between hearing about something and being able to buy it. So nah, I guess I don't really have a problem with that.
I'd like more long term goals, like what's in the future for AoS six months to a year down the line. But I've been burned by things like that in the past, where plans changed or get delayed, and it feels like I'm being strung along with a promised feature that never appears or doesn't come out to the standard I was expecting. That's half the reason I don't play MMOs anymore. I could see how such long term plans could ultimately bite GW in the ass, and if you were afraid of your fanbase, you'd be afraid to release plans that weren't 100% certain too.
As for listening to me... nah. I play GW's game, they don't make my game. I'm perfectly capable of making games myself (on computers, not necessarily miniatures), and if there's something I'd really like to see done, I'd do it. I play games from other people because I want to see their visions and experience their ideas. If every game were what I wanted, all the games would look the same eventually, and I value new ideas and variety more than conformity. I see gaming as something to explore, not comfort food. I want wild and untamed experiences. To me, a brilliant idea that doesn't quite work is more exciting that an expertly implemented, but ultimately trite one. I like Age of Sigmar so much precisely because it is wild and untamed. It won't be like this in five years, for better or worse, so right now, I'm enjoying the ride.
And I guarantee that GW is listening to fans. As someone who has created things in the past, I promise you that someone is reading every comment, just like I read every review. I cheered every good review and booed every bad one, but I read every single one of them and took the things they said to heart - when I agreed with them. When a bunch of people on a popular forum like this act like petty children, that just reinforces the idea that GW's isolationist policy is correct.
It's not just "Haterz Hatin" that makes us think GW doesn't care. It's GW's own words and actions that do.
GW comes off even worse when compared to other companies and how they treat their fans. Corvus Belli will send people and prizes if you have a group over 30 people. PP recently asked on their forum (because they're not scared of having one) what people wanted from their magazine. A month before that they asked what people would do to improve the game. Shortly after that a massive errata was published.
And that is a matter of scale. It is easier to talk to your fans when there are fewer out there, or where their opinions are more homogeneous. While it's not the same thing, I used to run a webcomic and its associated community. When there were just a few thousand fans, it was simple enough to listen to every one and talk to them one on one. But by the time I had about 20,000 daily readers, it became impossible to respond to every email or assuage the fears of every complainer. I'd ask my fans a question and I'd get several hundred responses - many of them contradictory, some impossible. So someone was going to be disappointed, and in the cases where I followed my own desires instead of my fans, I ended up disappointing a lot of people, some of which never forgave me for it.
So yeah, I get it. But I also understand that once you reach a certain scale, it requires exponentially more effort. I could've hired more moderators and left the public relations to someone more suited for it - I should've done that, but I didn't, because I was an "artist", not a community manager, and I wanted to pursue what I wanted to pursue and if that was against the wishes of my fans, tough titties. And I paid the price for that on several occasions. But I'd still probably do it the same way if I did it again. After all, I'm still an "artist" and I still think managing a group of unruly, ungrateful nerfherders is a poor use of my time.
GW making high quality models isn't enough to make me think they actually care. Especially not when compared to how they used to act.
And then seeing models like this make me not so sure the best models on the market thing is true.
Spoiler:
I think that model is pretty cool. It's not one of their best, but not one of their worst either. But I could cherry pick Warmachine models too. Denny2 is awful, and Zerkova1 has a horse face. And the resin/plastic models they make are awful. Some models are better than others. But I think when GW makes a great model, it is pretty much unequaled.
Edit: And AOS isn't really a skirmish game. You can use less models, but the game doesn't seem to do that particularly well. Nor massive battles either. It's sweet spot seems to be in the middle, like Warmachine size.
I think AoS is built more around a certain number of warscrolls, rather than the number of models. Each warscroll changes the game ever so slightly, and having too many extra rules bogs it down. But whether those rules apply to one figure or fifty, I don't think matters (other than the slightly longer movement phase). I think AoS could easily be a skirmish game with a few solo models or as a large scale battle and lose nothing.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes of course the ironic thing about AoS taking a minute to decide the power level is that is exactly what you have with points:
A: How many points do you want to play?
B: Say, 1,500?
A: Sounds cool.
You must be very lucky then, we have been playing AoS since day 1 and it has never been quick or easy to come up with a good quasi fair fight. We are all experience gamers in our group and have all our warscrolls printed and in 3 ring binders. but it is still a bigger pain in the rear to match it up, mostly we now just do battallion box. but the difference is, stores (especially ours) can put out X points today on the tables and everyone can show up already to play. so far AoS cannot do that without house rules. Basically other than our smallish circle, if we want to play its standing around trying to figure out what everyone even has, or just bring all our models and try to come up with something.
also you can have 4 players on the table for a fast quick game without investing many hours in playing that battle.
are you counting the few hours 4 people have to spend talking which house rule set will they use and which unit combination works how and what unit combinations are ok and which are not, and what to do if 2 are ok and 1 is not etc
Are you talking from personal experience here? Because my last game was a 4 player and it took a minute to decide the power level.
The games was fast and fun!
Yes 2 player games vs someone you don't know took me almost an hour to set up, and even then we had tons of arguements durning the game and back and forth starting with We didn't agree to this or that, considering that 4 people are more then 2, I could imagine it being 3-4 hours.
Bottle wrote: Yep. But that's not the case for every battle. The main thing to remember with Age of Sigmar is that each game is bespoke.
Okay, how do you decide what to use then?
Bottle wrote: If one player had been goblins for example we would have allowed them a few more units to balance.
But how many more?
Okay, if you don't mind me using a 40k example, if one guy had Sternguard Veterans and the other had Fire Warriors then it would be obvious that the second guy needs more dudes, but without points I wouldn't even be able to guess how many more...
Not trying to be anal here, I really don't follow how this works.
Bottle wrote: Next time I play a 4 player I plan to use the Convergence of Fate Battleplan which has no model or wound limit but allows the player with the strongest force each battle-round to be ganged up upon by the other three.
That... Doesn't remotely sound like it could work.
If they're too close in strength then the guy being ganged up would get so thoroughly pummeled that he probably wouldn't stand a chance even after it becomes someone else's turn to get ganged up on.
Too far apart and Mr Bigshot can just crush the other three forces together all by himself.
And how do you even know who's force is the strongest?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RoperPG wrote: Beginning to think that playing games of AoS without a comp system is like magic-eye pictures - you either can, or you can't.
Like, "I don't know, I just can" can, and "can't even comprehend how to start going about it", can't.
I call BS on that, if there's a way, there's a way. Simple as that.
If not then these people are just lucky.
I would suspect that the specific people involved are going to make a fairly massive difference.
Where players aren't too concerned about the matchup being completely fair, or are willing to just go with the flow, it will be quick and easy.
Where play is a little more competitive, or potentiality even just where players don't know each other or aren't as comfortable with each other.. . Not so much.
But how many more?
Okay, if you don't mind me using a 40k example, if one guy had Sternguard Veterans and the other had Fire Warriors then it would be obvious that the second guy needs more dudes, but without points I wouldn't even be able to guess how many more...
Relax guy. Don't worry about it. Have fun.
You can't make a game absolutely fair, so settle for fair enough. A few extra guys won't be the deciding factor in the game, believe it or not. You can play wildly unbalanced games of AoS and still have fun, so just aim for a number of units where you don't think you are taking advantage of your opponent (and he agrees to it). Whether that is 5 models or 8 models won't make a difference.
(Note: This approach is fine for AoS, but I wouldn't use it for Warmachine. Basically, AoS is about competing goals, not competing players)
Bottle wrote: Yep. But that's not the case for every battle. The main thing to remember with Age of Sigmar is that each game is bespoke.
Okay, how do you decide what to use then?
Like I said, it's bespoke to every game. Sometimes I play the 4 page rules "deployment poker" sometimes I choose a model count, sometimes a wound count, sometimes with GWs school league rules, sometimes with the battleplan specific set up.
Bottle wrote: If one player had been goblins for example we would have allowed them a few more units to balance.
But how many more?
Okay, if you don't mind me using a 40k example, if one guy had Sternguard Veterans and the other had Fire Warriors then it would be obvious that the second guy needs more dudes, but without points I wouldn't even be able to guess how many more...
Not trying to be anal here, I really don't follow how this works.
But being anal is exactly the reason you're not following. Just wing it. You're trying to create a fun game, not two sides exactly 50/50 in chance.
Bottle wrote: Next time I play a 4 player I plan to use the Convergence of Fate Battleplan which has no model or wound limit but allows the player with the strongest force each battle-round to be ganged up upon by the other three.
That... Doesn't remotely sound like it could work.
If they're too close in strength then the guy being ganged up would get so thoroughly pummeled that he probably wouldn't stand a chance even after it becomes someone else's turn to get ganged up on.
Too far apart and Mr Bigshot can just crush the other three forces together all by himself.
And how do you even know who's force is the strongest?
Go read the Battleplan, it's available from Google. It was the free one given in pamphlet format with mail orders.
It's essentially Triumph & Treachery turned into a single scenario. Players choose alliances each turn so usually whoever is deemed the strongest is picked on. If no-one is obviosuly the strongest then players are likely to not gang up but declare war on the closest threat. Lastly the game ends as soon as one player is wiped out so you don't want to do that unless you are in the winning position (having the most models within 3" of the center terrain piece).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RoperPG wrote: Beginning to think that playing games of AoS without a comp system is like magic-eye pictures - you either can, or you can't.
Like, "I don't know, I just can" can, and "can't even comprehend how to start going about it", can't.
I call BS on that, if there's a way, there's a way. Simple as that.
If not then these people are just lucky.
There's not one way, there's lots :-)
insaniak wrote:I would suspect that the specific people involved are going to make a fairly massive difference.
Where players aren't too concerned about the matchup being completely fair, or are willing to just go with the flow, it will be quick and easy.
Where play is a little more competitive, or potentiality even just where players don't know each other or aren't as comfortable with each other.. . Not so much.
I would agree with this.
My advice is to ask what sort of game they want to play and go with it.
If they give a non-answer, tell them what sort of game you want and go with it.
And if someone wanted to play more competitively I would suggest GW's school rules to play with.
RoperPG wrote: Beginning to think that playing games of AoS without a comp system is like magic-eye pictures - you either can, or you can't.
Like, "I don't know, I just can" can, and "can't even comprehend how to start going about it", can't.
I call BS on that, if there's a way, there's a way. Simple as that.
If not then these people are just lucky.
Okay, I'll answer as best I can by giving a specific example to try and demonstrate the thinking.
We picked scenario (which is normally on a "haven't tried this one before" or "yeah, enjoyed that one" basis), read it thoroughly, checked we both understood victory conditions etc.
We set up the table using whatever terrain generation rules are required by the scenario. If there's a passer-by we normally get them to decide what and where.
We start setting up, and I have to go first.
In this scenario, my opponent's objective is to get models off my board edge, and I have to stop him - there's a random game length in effect too. (Some scenarios are triggered by a specific condition).
So ranged damage and delaying tactics are the order of the day.
I put down a unit of xbow Judicators (should be more effective as I won't be the one advancing), bow Judicators and a couple of wizards as my ranged damage dealers.
Leaving a couple of my primes in my case, I deploy a unit of 11 Liberators with shield, and a Lord Castellant. The Liberators are deployed forward, and are intended to be the mother of all tarpits. With the Castellant and possibly the Wizards chucking defensive effects on them, I can probably rely on them to hold a unit or two up and run the clock.
I add a Celestant on foot as he has ranged damage and boosts damage output of the Liberators.
Add in a last defence of a unit of 5 Decimators and a small unit of 3 Retributors to catch any that break through my main line.
At this stage I still have plenty of minis left in my case, but I've got everything I think I'm going to need deployed on the board already, and it's at this point I really start to pay attention to what my opponent has deployed.
He has 3 Warmachines, an engineer, a big unit of longbeards(20+), a bsb, a runesmith, a lord and Bugman's rangers.
I'm not sure what else he may have but it's not looking like he's brought any gyrocopters, but I know he has other stuff in his case, so I just stick down my Lord Relictor.
Given the scenario, his lightning thingy will be useful - but it wasn't useful enough for me to decide he was essential, so he was in the 'nice if an option' bin, and he's a good placeholder to see what else my opponent's got.
My opponent sticks down a unit of normal dwarf Warriors, about 25.
At this point, I end my deployment. He may well stick down another 3 or 4 big units, but I'm confident that I've got the tools I need to win the scenario already on the board even if he does that.
My opponent adds a couple of lords, and then ends his deployment. I have no idea why he stopped, btw.
We play the game, I win a major victory, both agree it was fun but I'm forced to agree he could have done with more units - but as I finished up deployment first, this is a lesson for him, not me.
Like I said, I can't explain how we balance our games. We play with scenarios - only scenarios - and we play to win. We accept that some scenario/matchup combos may produce outrageous results first time around, but that's it.
I *could* sum it up as "take whatever, just don't take more than you need" but that's probably not any help either...
Sqorgar wrote: Relax guy. Don't worry about it. Have fun.
Impossible, that's the whole point.
I can't just "relax" and "have fun" when I'm desperately trying to figure out how much to bloody bring! That's not a fun time, that's an exam question from Hell!
Sqorgar wrote: You can't make a game absolutely fair, so settle for fair enough.
I'm talking about making it fair enough!
Sqorgar wrote: A few extra guys won't be the deciding factor in the game, believe it or not.
Sometimes it can be, and a lot of the time it'll be WAY MORE than "a few extra guys".
Sqorgar wrote: You can play wildly unbalanced games of AoS and still have fun
I call BS again, curbstomping isn't fun unless you're a WAAC jerk and getting curbstomped isn't fun period.
Sqorgar wrote: so just aim for a number of units where you don't think you are taking advantage of your opponent (and he agrees to it)
Thing is, without points or some other balancing mechanic I don't know what that number is, or even a ballpark
Sqorgar wrote: Whether that is 5 models or 8 models won't make a difference.
It absolutely will if they're anything remotely potent and random intuition isn't nearly accurate enough to give that level of error for really weak models only.
Bottle wrote: Like I said, it's bespoke to every game. Sometimes I play the 4 page rules "deployment poker" sometimes I choose a model count, sometimes a wound count, sometimes with GWs school league rules, sometimes with the battleplan specific set up.
...Yeah, but how do you decide? That's what I really want to know.
Bottle wrote: But being anal is exactly the reason you're not following. Just wing it. You're trying to create a fun game, not two sides exactly 50/50 in chance.
No, not it's not. It's not me being anal, it's just me not being a Warhammer savant.
I really can't just wing it, I really have no clue what each model is capable of.
I never said it had to be exactly 50/50, just reasonably close and I can't get it reasonably close with just random guesswork.
Seriously. I can handle if one side has a mild advantage, but if someone just dumps an army and I'm told to make a list roughly balanced against it, I not only can't do it but don't see how it can be done. That's why I'm asking.
Bottle wrote: Go read the Battleplan, it's available from Google. It was the free one given in pamphlet format with mail orders.
It's essentially Triumph & Treachery turned into a single scenario. Players choose alliances each turn so usually whoever is deemed the strongest is picked on. If no-one is obviosuly the strongest then players are likely to not gang up but declare war on the closest threat. Lastly the game ends as soon as one player is wiped out so you don't want to do that unless you are in the winning position (having the most models within 3" of the center terrain piece).
Doesn't really help too much with balance then. If someone has an overwhelming force the not only could they likely roll over the other people, but teaming up against That Guy would be particularly difficult, even before factoring in people preferring to try side with him and join in with the curbstomp!
@Roper: Since I'm not familiar with the actual examples I was mainly trying to read into the general thought process.
So basically it's plonking down a unit at a time according to what you think will be effective at the mission at hand, trying to size up how effective against the units they're putting down.
I can sort of understand the logic, but the brick wall I keep slamming into is that I don't really have a good idea how potent my unit is without a points value. I can make a guess that say, my Ravenwing Black Knights are badasses since they're fast, shooty, choppy and really really durable (basically a shooting weapon needs to have Ignores Cover AND AP3 or better to stand a good chance at hurting them) amongst other things and I can suspect they could be really handy at a particular mission but without ponts values or something similar I'm not really sure how many to plonk down.
Bottle wrote: Like I said, it's bespoke to every game. Sometimes I play the 4 page rules "deployment poker" sometimes I choose a model count, sometimes a wound count, sometimes with GWs school league rules, sometimes with the battleplan specific set up.
...Yeah, but how do you decide? That's what I really want to know.
The same way you decide if you're going to play Kill Team or Zone Mortalis or "no superheavies". Just have a little chat with your opponent to work something out. After a few games you'll get a feel for it. For example if you have a super elite army like Stormcasts against a horde army like Night Goblins, the Sudden Death rules aren't going to work as even with 33.2% extra models the horde player is likely to have a much weaker army. The Sudden Death rules are optional, so in this instance you leave them out. Let the horde player have 33.3% extra models without hinderence.
Bottle wrote: But being anal is exactly the reason you're not following. Just wing it. You're trying to create a fun game, not two sides exactly 50/50 in chance.
No, not it's not. It's not me being anal, it's just me not being a Warhammer savant.
I really can't just wing it, I really have no clue what each model is capable of.
I never said it had to be exactly 50/50, just reasonably close and I can't get it reasonably close with just random guesswork.
If you're still new to the game try playing much smaller games with a few warscrolls each side. Play the IGOUGO deployment method and try and match each unit being deployed (e.g. Player 1 deploys a unit of 5 light cavalry, player 2 deploys a similar unit, player 1 deploys a war machine, player 2 does too, etc)
Seriously. I can handle if one side has a mild advantage, but if someone just dumps an army and I'm told to make a list roughly balanced against it, I not only can't do it but don't see how it can be done. That's why I'm asking.
Cook up a list with a soft counter or like minded unit for each of your opponent's.
Bottle wrote: Go read the Battleplan, it's available from Google. It was the free one given in pamphlet format with mail orders.
It's essentially Triumph & Treachery turned into a single scenario. Players choose alliances each turn so usually whoever is deemed the strongest is picked on. If no-one is obviosuly the strongest then players are likely to not gang up but declare war on the closest threat. Lastly the game ends as soon as one player is wiped out so you don't want to do that unless you are in the winning position (having the most models within 3" of the center terrain piece).
Doesn't really help too much with balance then. If someone has an overwhelming force the not only could they likely roll over the other people, but teaming up against That Guy would be particularly difficult, even before factoring in people preferring to try side with him and join in with the curbstomp!
Go watch this Battleplan on YouTube. It seems to work really well. I still haven't played it yet but will report how it goes when I do.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As you seem to be a 40k player, you should get one of your friends who collects Tau to play the scenario in the latest White Dwarf with you.
The forces are 1 Ghostkeel and 5 Stealth Suits vs 6 enemy units.
6 enemy units of what? Anything.
So what do you bring? It's up to you.
Trying out this scenario and aiming for a fun game will get you in the frame of mind for AoS. :-)
I can't just "relax" and "have fun" when I'm desperately trying to figure out how much to bloody bring! That's not a fun time, that's an exam question from Hell!
Which is why I'm telling you to relax. It isn't rocket science. Pick some metric - doesn't matter which - to get a rough idea of army capabilities. Wounds works. Heck, number of models works. Number of warscrolls. Whatever. Just something that you can use as a baseline. Once you have that, then you look at the two armies and decide whether one army has a distinct advantage over the other. Not a slight advantage. An obvious, glaringly huge advantage. The kind of advantage that can not be argued.
Then you suggest something that could make it more fair (half the models in this unit, add this warscroll, limit summoning to 10 models, whatever). Then your opponent either agrees and you play, or he'll offer a counter offer. Go back and forth for as long as you think it is worth your time, and if you still can't decide, you pick one option, let your opponent pick another. Either play two games and see who was right or use the Most Important Rule, and just roll to see which option is picked. If it works out, great. If not, you know better for next time (I assume you intend to play more than one game of AoS over your lifetime). And you'll probably enjoy the game, even at a disadvantage, because even the little guys have a chance of hitting the big guys, so there is always a little bit of hope that you can get lucky.
Or, if you are doing set up like in the Four Pages, when your opponent puts down a unit, you try to figure out a comparable opposite to that unit. By taking turns, you can each take the time to build your army in response to what the other player is building. If you don't feel comfortable enough with the units, start with small games, with just a few warscrolls, until you are more familiar with it. I can't speak for all groups, but I think AoS players will be willing to play smaller games because of how the game scales.
I call BS again, curbstomping isn't fun unless you're a WAAC jerk and getting curbstomped isn't fun period.
AoS isn't like Warmachine where the make up of your army is going to be the deciding factor in your victory. It will sway the game one direction or the other, but how you play is going to make a much bigger difference. Most of the really big curbstompy units, like Nagash, you'll see coming a mile away. And a few non-hero models here or there won't be the difference between potential victory and an unstoppable curbstomping.
Bottle wrote: If you're still new to the game try playing much smaller games with a few warscrolls each side. Play the IGOUGO deployment method and try and match each unit being deployed (e.g. Player 1 deploys a unit of 5 light cavalry, player 2 deploys a similar unit, player 1 deploys a war machine, player 2 does too, etc)
And if the two players don't have 'similar' units?
Cook up a list with a soft counter or like minded unit for each of your opponent's.
As above.
And that is going to rely on you actually being familiar enough with your opponent's units and what they can do to match them fairly. It's not a system that is at all accessible for new players.
So much of this AoS 'balancing trick' seems to rely on people bringing their entire collections and their entire collections being big enough to play this game of counter deployment.
Legitimate question here but can the game really work if I wanted to say build a fluffy list using say, the shadow warriors, as a theme? If I decide I want the Shadow King, 30 shadow warriors and 10 Ellyrian reavers converted to look like mounted shadow warriors and that is what I brought to a FLGS for a game, would that even work? There is a lot of shooting there, and I wouldn't bring anything else I could deploy to counter something like Nagash if he hit the table (I don't actually know if Nagash would be a hard counter here, just an example), and I have no idea if that will be too much shooting for my opponent's all melee army to ever stand a chance of reaching combat. But that is what I fluffed up, converted and lovingly painted. That is what I want to play and that is ALL I want to play, I don't want to have to throw in pheonix guard or spearmen.
Is the result that if I and my opponent didn't bring appropriate lists to play each other (or lug our entire collections to the store to build such lists) that we don't get a game?
jonolikespie wrote: So much of this AoS 'balancing trick' seems to rely on people bringing their entire collections and their entire collections being big enough to play this game of counter deployment.
Legitimate question here but can the game really work if I wanted to say build a fluffy list using say, the shadow warriors, as a theme? If I decide I want the Shadow King, 30 shadow warriors and 10 Ellyrian reavers converted to look like mounted shadow warriors and that is what I brought to a FLGS for a game, would that even work? There is a lot of shooting there, and I wouldn't bring anything else I could deploy to counter something like Nagash if he hit the table (I don't actually know if Nagash would be a hard counter here, just an example), and I have no idea if that will be too much shooting for my opponent's all melee army to ever stand a chance of reaching combat. But that is what I fluffed up, converted and lovingly painted. That is what I want to play and that is ALL I want to play, I don't want to have to throw in pheonix guard or spearmen.
Is the result that if I and my opponent didn't bring appropriate lists to play each other (or lug our entire collections to the store to build such lists) that we don't get a game?
lugging entire collections seems to work for me, but it is a pain in the _______.
While it sounds like a lot of work to bring one's collection to each AoS game, AoS is supposed to be for smaller games, so if you brought 2,500 pts of 8E, you should have adequate amounts of stuff to choose for a typical AoS game. In my case, I can fit 4,000 pts of 7E Dogs of War (& Empire) in a single 2 cu ft duffel, knowing that I'd field less than half of it.
Or, just bring an army, drop it down, and let your opponent react to it.
Ok, but bringing a whole army doesn't help if I want to field something fluffy with a specific theme. So how would plopping your army down and letting your opponent react to it actually work? Am I not putting all the pressure on him to field what he thinks will make a fair game not what he *wants* to play?
jonolikespie wrote: Ok, but bringing a whole army doesn't help if I want to field something fluffy with a specific theme. So how would plopping your army down and letting your opponent react to it actually work? Am I not putting all the pressure on him to field what he thinks will make a fair game not what he *wants* to play?
If you are playing against someone you haven't agreed upon a baseline limitation with ahead of time, the way you balance armies is by bringing your whole collection and making compromises. Since synergies aren't as overpowering in AoS, I don't think the compromises you have to make will be quite as extreme as you are expecting. You may not be able to whip out Nagash or Celestant Prime without prior agreement, but if you have a similar number of wounds and keywords, you'll probably have a decent battle, give or take. If you want to set up something exceptional, like a really fluffy scenario and army, employ the entire Khorne dreadhold castle, or whip out the game breaking models, then you'd probably want to agree with that ahead of time.
The games you play with strangers are going to be a subset of the variety of possibilities offered by the game as a whole. The more models you have available, and the more willing you are to discuss with your opponent how you want to play, the larger that subset of possibilities gets. If you want only a few specific models and refuse to compromise with your opponent, then the subset of possibilities is going to be very small indeed (possibly an empty set).
So... if you want to do something 'exceptional' like, say, use the same army as you used in the last game, then you're going to have to renegotiate every single time you play someone new.
Yeah, that sounds like a whole barrel of fun, right there.
@Sqorgar: Brother, my view isn't cynical. It's realistic. I love capitalism. LOVE it. But I also have GW hobby addiction. They are the Phillip Morris, Nike, Apple, Google (err "Alphabet" now) of the table top world. It's not bad. It's just business. I buy their product, but lets not kid ourselves. They are a public company. And when they feel the ire of 1000 souls a day being sacrificed to the Golden Throne of Mantic....maybe theyll change. Or maybe the profits will go up? I suspect they are smarter than me, but I would make different decisions if it were me. BUT thats why Im not a CEO. Id still be manufacturing 5 1/4" floppies, or datasettes, or...7"floppies. Or tin soldiers and rubber band powered cannons.
@NAVARRO: I am still intrigued by AoS, seeing some cool bat reps where The Space marines or whoever totally curbstomped some night goblins... it looked fun, but i do play orks. I am very intrigued by KillKrazy's mention of the 9th age... googled it. Very interesting! I am looking at sniping some ebay army, but i have got to finish my dropzone, spacehulk, bloodbowl, boltaction and in coming perry miniature civilwar set.... AoS/KoW/9thA are on my radar. So i just need to get an army on the cheap.... paint er up and play all the free rules. Lol!
insaniak wrote: So... if you want to do something 'exceptional' like, say, use the same army as you used in the last game, then you're going to have to renegotiate every single time you play someone new.
Yeah, that sounds like a whole barrel of fun, right there.
If you want to look at it that way, then yes. AoS has no internal balancing, so any balance that you may want from the game will necessarily be an agreement between you and your opponent. That is just what exists in lieu of anything else. But the negotiation doesn't have to be painful or time consuming, and a lot of the scenarios give you a really good starting point for building a game.
I don't think Age of Sigmar is meant to be a super competitive game played exclusively against strangers, especially of the pain in the ass variety. And frankly, if you are unwilling to compromise for the sake of a better game, you are probably the pain in the ass type of player that would be better served with a more structured, cutthroat game.
I completely fail to understand the objection. Either you negotiate a "fair" game as you alternate deployments, or you trust your opponent to be fair after he sees exactly what you're bringing. Either way, at some point, you have trust your opponent.
Just like you had to trust your opponent not to be a dick about points...
Ok I think I've found a new objection to AoS, or rather a new way to state my objection to the no points thing.
I have 0 interest in collecting a faction, I want to build an army. I want a cool, fluffy, army based around a good theme, like the above shadow warriors example. I have no interest in the rest of the high elf faction, nor do I have any interest in painting tons of extra models. I want to set myself a limit, build an army to that limit, and then convert and paint everything to a high standard without buying or painting a single model more than I need to.
While I could probably do that with the comp systems the community has established with the actual rules as published by Games Workshop this seems completely at odds with that.
Just like you had to trust your opponent not to be a dick about points...
In what way?
I suppose you had to trust your opponent was not actively cheating by using more points than the agreed limit, but in a tourney that would be checked by the TO beforehand and it is a lot harder to accidentally miss the points limit for a casual game than it is for both players to just disagree on how many goblins a sigmarine is worth.
jonolikespie wrote: Ok I think I've found a new objection to AoS, or rather a new way to state my objection to the no points thing.
I have 0 interest in collecting a faction, I want to build an army. I want a cool, fluffy, army based around a good theme, like the above shadow warriors example. I have no interest in the rest of the high elf faction, nor do I have any interest in painting tons of extra models. I want to set myself a limit, build an army to that limit, and then convert and paint everything to a high standard without buying or painting a single model more than I need to.
While I could probably do that with the comp systems the community has established with the actual rules as published by Games Workshop this seems completely at odds with that.
I don't see how Age of Sigmar prevents that or even hampers the process. I love Dwarf Slayers. I have 40 of them, plus a dozen or so character models.
In 8th edition, my army wasn't a "Slayer army". It was a Dwarf army with a bunch of Slayers (many of which I couldn't use due to point restrictions, etc) With Age of Sigmar, I throw the old mandatory units out of the window and play with exclusively my themed, fluffy army.
My little brother loves Tomb Kings Statues. In 8th edition, he was hard pressed to be able to run his entire statuary army, and then he had to run a bunch of fiddly skeletons. Now, he just plays his statues.
If we started yesterday instead of years ago, we would not have to buy a single model more than we wanted to. We wouldn't need to collect a faction. We would have chosen our army and bought it, which seems to be the opposite of what your objection to Age of Sigmar is.
Sqorgar wrote: And frankly, if you are unwilling to compromise for the sake of a better game, you are probably the pain in the ass type of player that would be better served with a more structured, cutthroat game.
I think the issue isn't so much people being unwilling to compromise as there being no real way to know what is an isn't fair without a reasonable amount of experience in the game.
So far, the only option suggested for getting around that problem is 'just don't worry about it!'... which simply isn't a particularly useful answer.
There's a weird situation created here by the very structure of the game. They've made AoS into something more akin to Mageknight or the various othr Clix games than a traditional wargame. The thing is, in the Clix genre, people don't get quite as attached to the actual models... they're just counters for playing a game. But miniatures that people actually buy and build and paint develop a little more attachment. People build armies that they love, and they want to be able to use those armies. Having that all thrown up in the air by a system that doesn't let you plan just what you're going to be able to put on the table from one game to the next feels like a really weird direction to go in.
Edit - Or, in a nutshell, this:
jonolikespie wrote: Ok I think I've found a new objection to AoS, or rather a new way to state my objection to the no points thing.
I have 0 interest in collecting a faction, I want to build an army. I want a cool, fluffy, army based around a good theme, like the above shadow warriors example. I have no interest in the rest of the high elf faction, nor do I have any interest in painting tons of extra models. I want to set myself a limit, build an army to that limit, and then convert and paint everything to a high standard without buying or painting a single model more than I need to.
If we started yesterday instead of years ago, we would not have to buy a single model more than we wanted to. We wouldn't need to collect a faction. We would have chosen our army and bought it, ...
And then, according to what we've just been told over the last page or so, may or may not ever get to actually put that army on the table, due to having to customise what you use based on what your opponent happens to bring with him on the day.
jonolikespie wrote: Ok I think I've found a new objection to AoS, or rather a new way to state my objection to the no points thing.
I have 0 interest in collecting a faction, I want to build an army. I want a cool, fluffy, army based around a good theme, like the above shadow warriors example. I have no interest in the rest of the high elf faction, nor do I have any interest in painting tons of extra models. I want to set myself a limit, build an army to that limit, and then convert and paint everything to a high standard without buying or painting a single model more than I need to.
While I could probably do that with the comp systems the community has established with the actual rules as published by Games Workshop this seems completely at odds with that.
I don't see how Age of Sigmar prevents that or even hampers the process. I love Dwarf Slayers. I have 40 of them, plus a dozen or so character models.
In 8th edition, my army wasn't a "Slayer army". It was a Dwarf army with a bunch of Slayers (many of which I couldn't use due to point restrictions, etc) With Age of Sigmar, I throw the old mandatory units out of the window and play with exclusively my themed, fluffy army.
My little brother loves Tomb Kings Statues. In 8th edition, he was hard pressed to be able to run his entire statuary army, and then he had to run a bunch of fiddly skeletons. Now, he just plays his statues.
If we started yesterday instead of years ago, we would not have to buy a single model more than we wanted to. We wouldn't need to collect a faction. We would have chosen our army and bought it, which seems to be the opposite of what your objection to Age of Sigmar is.
Sorry if I misunderstood a part of your post.
My objection has nothing to do with wanting to make an army out of all 'special' and 'rare' units without any 'core' from the 8th ed army building system, it is that the way the rules are supposed to work I can put down 15 archers, my opponent 15 spearmen, me another 15 archers, him 10 riflemen, me 10 light cav, him 10 heavy cav. I have my whole army on the field, that is all I bought, all I painted, and I love the theme of it. Except he then puts down 20 greatswords, a cannon and a griffin. He's doing nothing wrong, and he just wants to play his 'army' like I just want to play mine, but the way the game is set up I seem top be expected to have pheonix guard and a dragon to put down to match him.
In 8th edition, my army wasn't a "Slayer army". It was a Dwarf army with a bunch of Slayers (many of which I couldn't use due to point restrictions, etc) With Age of Sigmar, I throw the old mandatory units out of the window and play with exclusively my themed, fluffy army.
My little brother loves Tomb Kings Statues. In 8th edition, he was hard pressed to be able to run his entire statuary army, and then he had to run a bunch of fiddly skeletons. Now, he just plays his statues.
One might counter with the point that an entire army of nothing but Slayers never really had much of a basis in fluff to begin with, much like the forces of the Tomb Kings have never been portrayed as just a bunch of giant statue things.
Now, one can call it a theme, but it doesn't necessarily make it fluffy either, much like an Empire army of nothing but Steam Tanks could ostensibly be a "themed" army that someone might think is cool, but has no basis in the background of the game. and in many instances, such could appear to be little more than an excuse for spam.
Just like you had to trust your opponent not to be a dick about points...
In what way?
Given the constant complaints about how GW doesn't price things properly, the obvious hope would be that they did not bring a babykiller list to curbstomp your fluff bunny list into the ground.
But the real objection here is that none of you are willing to accept that you are going to lose some games, for any reason. Whether it be bad luck, or a cheaty / unfair opponent. Or because you're just not as good as you think you are.
Hiding behind the fig leaf of points doesn't change things, any more than not having points. Not all battles are fair, nor should they be. The real question is simply how well you can do with the forces you've got. If you tried to play well, then that's all GW asks of you.
If you can get past actually honestly losing a game, then AoS won't be an issue.
However, if you're still obsessing over winning, then AoS is not the game for you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jonolikespie wrote: I have 0 interest in collecting a faction, I want to build an army. I want a cool, fluffy, army based around a good theme, like the above shadow warriors example. I have no interest in the rest of the high elf faction, nor do I have any interest in painting tons of extra models. I want to set myself a limit, build an army to that limit, and then convert and paint everything to a high standard without buying or painting a single model more than I need to.
GW has no interest in supporting you on that; they want you to keep buying stuff, not to buy X points and quit.
Quite frankly, if you're going to be completely uncompromising about what you field, and you end up playing someone of the same mindset, playing their fixed "army", then you probably won't have an awesome game.
But then, that wouldn't be anything different from 8E, either, as comp / restrictions would have forced you to field other core stuff to enable your shadow warriors, watering your theme down. Or your army would have been weak due to points balance issues.
Again, if that's what you want to do, you should play something else. Not sure what that'd be, as I'd expect Ninth Age and Kings of War to have some sort of comp / restrictions just like in 8E.
Just like you had to trust your opponent not to be a dick about points...
In what way?
Given the constant complaints about how GW doesn't price things properly, the obvious hope would be that they did not bring a babykiller list to curbstomp your fluff bunny list into the ground.
But the real objection here is that none of you are willing to accept that you are going to lose some games, for any reason. Whether it be bad luck, or a cheaty / unfair opponent. Or because you're just not as good as you think you are.
That's a rather bold statement to make. The idea that people just can't accept that they lose games is rather, well, silly, especially for people that have stuck around through multiple editions. People that can't take losing don't stick around like that.
Hiding behind the fig leaf of points doesn't change things, any more than not having points. Not all battles are fair, nor should they be.
Most people approach tabletop wargames from the perspective that there's as much effort made towards fairness as possibly typically, or that, if the game isn't fair, that there's some sort of major stiliting in victory conditions to compensate.
I can't think of another tabletop miniatures game where anyone would even dream of making this argument. Not Dropzone Commander, not X-Wing, not Infinity, not Firestorm Armada, not Malifaux, not Warmahordes, or anything else I can think of.
The closest thing might be Flames of War, where it has a more "historical recreation" bit to it, but even that has points values and army structures and the the like and generally tried to be as "pickup" friendly as possible.
Vaktathi wrote: Now, one can call it a theme, but it doesn't necessarily make it fluffy either, much like an Empire army of nothing but Steam Tanks could ostensibly be a "themed" army that someone might think is cool, but has no basis in the background of the game. and in many instances, such could appear to be little more than an excuse for spam.
In general, these armies are nothing but spam, with ridiculously contrived justifications for the army.
Besides, GW wouldn't be so ridiculous as to allow players to field anything like that in 40k. Imagine of a player could field nothing but Titans in 40k. Or if every player could just take a Titan to augment their army. How stupid would that be?
Vaktathi wrote: Now, one can call it a theme, but it doesn't necessarily make it fluffy either, much like an Empire army of nothing but Steam Tanks could ostensibly be a "themed" army that someone might think is cool, but has no basis in the background of the game. and in many instances, such could appear to be little more than an excuse for spam.
In general, these armies are nothing but spam, with ridiculously contrived justifications for the army.
Besides, GW wouldn't be so ridiculous as to allow players to field anything like that in 40k. Imagine of a player could field nothing but Titans in 40k. Or if every player could just take a Titan to augment their army. How stupid would that be?
Just like you had to trust your opponent not to be a dick about points...
In what way?
Given the constant complaints about how GW doesn't price things properly, the obvious hope would be that they did not bring a babykiller list to curbstomp your fluff bunny list into the ground.
But the real objection here is that none of you are willing to accept that you are going to lose some games, for any reason. Whether it be bad luck, or a cheaty / unfair opponent. Or because you're just not as good as you think you are.
That's a rather bold statement to make. The idea that people just can't accept that they lose games is rather, well, silly, especially for people that have stuck around through multiple editions. People that can't take losing don't stick around like that.
Hiding behind the fig leaf of points doesn't change things, any more than not having points. Not all battles are fair, nor should they be.
Most people approach tabletop wargames from the perspective that there's as much effort made towards fairness as possibly typically, or that, if the game isn't fair, that there's some sort of major stiliting in victory conditions to compensate.
I can't think of another tabletop miniatures game where anyone would even dream of making this argument. Not Dropzone Commander, not X-Wing, not Infinity, not Firestorm Armada, not Malifaux, not Warmahordes, or anything else I can think of.
The closest thing might be Flames of War, where it has a more "historical recreation" bit to it, but even that has points values and army structures and the the like and generally tried to be as "pickup" friendly as possible.
It is an extremely mild statement, because otherwise, this whole "points" thing wouldn't be so much of a concern. If people were honest, they would admit that they cannot accept losing, so they need a points system that allows them to eke out some advantage that GW never intended, but a comp system that prevents their opponents for doing the same. If they didn't care about losing, then they'd accept that a big chunk of their wins (and losses) came from getting lucky or bringing some kind of OP list to the table, not "skill". If they didn't care about losing, they'd be OK to give their opponent an advantage. And if they really were even half as good as they pretend on the Internet, they'd win anyways, even with the odds against them..
None of those games are "fair", either. They all depend on a lot of luck and listbuilding to eke out advantage before the first die is thrown. If people were about fairness and skill, they'd play Chess or Go, and accept that a lot of games would be auto-loss / auto-win simply based on the skill of their opponent.
JohnHwangDD wrote: But the real objection here is that none of you are willing to accept that you are going to lose some games, for any reason. Whether it be bad luck, or a cheaty / unfair opponent. Or because you're just not as good as you think you are.
That's a ridiculous generalisation.
For the record, I entered a lot of 40K tournaments throughout 5th and 6th edition. I was extremely happy with my results if I managed to finish anywhere in the top half of the field (which happened about half of the time). As a standby, I'd settle for winning at least one of those games, and if I managed to not get tabled more than twice, well, that was good too.
I have absolutely no problem with losing games.
I do, however, prefer the game to start on a more or less even footing, so that the game is a contest between me and my opponent, rather than a test of which of us can fit more stuff in his car...
Not all battles are fair, nor should they be.
Battle aren't. Games should be, unless there's a specific reason for it to not be.
Uneven games are all well and good for a one-off challenge, or to play through a scenario-driven campaign. But the standard should be to aim for both players being on an even footing... because that's what keeps the game interesting for both players.
There's a difference between 'obsessing over winning' and 'wanting a fair game'.
I plan out my armies based the stories I make up. Not spam lists and I dont have a problem with losing. I use Man O Wars and Freebooters for pity's sake. I like the idea that thought needs to be put into the lists.
But I need a fair game to have fun.
JohnHwangDD wrote: If people were honest, they would admit that they cannot accept losing, so they need a points system that allows them to eke out some advantage that GW never intended, but a comp system that prevents their opponents for doing the same.
This, BTW, is the Wraithknight "problem" in a nutshell. People want their extra-strong Titans and other super units, but they don't like that WKs totally fething *wreck* them, so that's "unfair". Despite the WK being grossly overpriced in a Titan-free environment. Since they can't comp the WK out of the game, without losing their Titans, the WK is "unfair", when it actually does exactly what GW wants it to do in managing the metagame.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Since they can't comp the WK out of the game, without losing their Titans, the WK is "unfair", when it actually does exactly what GW wants it to do in managing the metagame.
You know, you can go ahead and say I don't care about anything but winning. You can say I can't take loosing. I don't give a gak. But you still haven't explained why an inherently unfair game is somehow a good thing.
JohnHwangDD wrote: But the real objection here is that none of you are willing to accept that you are going to lose some games, for any reason. Whether it be bad luck, or a cheaty / unfair opponent. Or because you're just not as good as you think you are.
That's a ridiculous generalisation.
There's a difference between 'obsessing over winning' and 'wanting a fair game'.
Too bad it fits jono to a tee.
Not really. You're still presuming points to be fair, when we all know that points are not fair. At best, there is a semblance of external balance across a majority of factions, but no system out there has internal and external balance to a level that we might truly consider "fair". That's why the WM/H crowd takes forever to admit that their balance isn't actually that good, and never has been. It's why all of their wins are based on skill, rather than admitting that it's luck.
I mean, just read the comments here. Look how hard jono is working to come up with his replies. If he accepted that half his games would start at a disadvantage, and that he was going to lose a good chunk of them, while losing a good chunk of the ones where he had initial advantage, this whole "discussion" would be a lot easier.
JohnHwangDD wrote: But the real objection here is that none of you are willing to accept that you are going to lose some games, for any reason. Whether it be bad luck, or a cheaty / unfair opponent. Or because you're just not as good as you think you are.
That's a ridiculous generalisation.
There's a difference between 'obsessing over winning' and 'wanting a fair game'.
Not really. You're still presuming points to be fair, when we all know that points are not fair.
...no. No, we don't. Just because GW is bad at doing something doesn't mean that it doesn't work. Are they complex? Yes. Are they tricky to get right? Of course, and that's one of the reasons that a system like AoS, one which asks you to eyeball a fair fight, isn't particularly good at doing pickup games, because you still have to do that work. Are they inherently flawed as a system? I have yet to see a compelling reason for them to be.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Not really. You're still presuming points to be fair, when we all know that points are not fair.
...no. No, we don't. Just because GW is bad at doing something doesn't mean that it doesn't work. Are they complex? Yes. Are they tricky to get right? Of course, and that's one of the reasons that a system like AoS, one which asks you to eyeball a fair fight, isn't particularly good at doing pickup games, because you still have to do that work. Are they inherently flawed as a system? I have yet to see a compelling reason for them to be.
If we know FOR A FACT that points are broken, how is eyeballing a game any worse?
Because the concept of points isn't broken. Certain models can be badly costed, but you've still got a baseline to work from if you want to adjust anything. A lot of people seem not to, but then, a lot of people tend to do what GW tell them to.
jonolikespie wrote: You know, you can go ahead and say I don't care about anything but winning. You can say I can't take loosing. I don't give a gak.
But you still haven't explained why an inherently unfair game is somehow a good thing.
Sure you do, or you wouldn't be responding like you do.
Every game is unfair, especially an "even points" game. What's ridiculous is that you won't acknowledge it as such.
You still haven't explained why an unbalanced game is a good thing. Forget if other games are balanced or not. GW deliberately have not tried to balance AoS, that is an objectively bad design choice unless you can explain why an unfair game is better than a fair one.
Spinner wrote: Because the concept of points isn't broken.
Certain models can be badly costed, but you've still got a baseline to work from if you want to adjust anything. A lot of people seem not to, but then, a lot of people tend to do what GW tell them to.
At least, until GW said 'buy Age of Sigmar'
Except, points absolutely are broken. This has been proven in every single complex game system out there. Even WM/H, the presumed "best" balanced game flat out fails to be balanced with points. Until people can dartboard any army (absolute internal balance) and have them all match evenly against every constructed army (absolute external balance), points are broken. And that pretends it's all self-play of equal skill with perfectly uniform (not merely fair) dice.
Ignoring GW, because WM/H isn't any better costed, despite what the WM/H players claim. PP claims to be all about balance, but they haven't achieved it despite massive playtesting. And 40k, arguably one of the worst-balanced games is still the most popular. By far.
Age of Sigmar gets away from the bs of pretending that points are fair.
jonolikespie wrote: You know, you can go ahead and say I don't care about anything but winning. You can say I can't take loosing. I don't give a gak.
But you still haven't explained why an inherently unfair game is somehow a good thing.
Sure you do, or you wouldn't be responding like you do.
Every game is unfair, especially an "even points" game. What's ridiculous is that you won't acknowledge it as such.
You still haven't explained why an unbalanced game is a good thing.
GW deliberately have not tried to balance AoS
As above, it reflects reality. And it's honest. Are you so naive and ignorant to believe that any of your games have been "fair"? Or just having the pretense and illusion of fairness?
That's a fething lie, and you know it. GW added a giant-killer provisions for Sudden Victory in AoS.
It is an extremely mild statement, because otherwise, this whole "points" thing wouldn't be so much of a concern.
There's a difference between not being able to accept losing, and not wanting to play absurdly one-sided curbstompings. I can handle losing. I've lots hundreds of 40k and Fantasy games in my life. If I couldn't handle losing, I can't for the life of me think of why I'd keep playing. I've been outplayed, I've outplayed others. I've lost games because the dice hated me and won games because the dice loved me. That's not the issue for most people.
However, most people prefer games that are ostensibly on at least a somewhat even playing field (even if not perfect)/. People can live with some level of imbalance and nobody expects *perfect* balance. However, I don't want to show up to a game and spend 3 hours curb-stomping an opponent who can't do anything, nor do I want to spend 3 hours having an opponent roll dice to tell me what models I'm putting back int he case and be able to do nothing otherwise meaningful. That's not fun for anybody really.
If people were honest, they would admit that they cannot accept losing, so they need a points system that allows them to eke out some advantage that GW never intended, but a comp system that prevents their opponents for doing the same.
How does not having a points system remove that ability to eke out an advantage GW never intended except by simply removing the basis for comparison in the first place?
If they didn't care about losing, then they'd accept that a big chunk of their wins (and losses) came from getting lucky or bringing some kind of OP list to the table, not "skill".
I don't think anyone is denying that, however, there's nothing wrong or bad about wanting to maximize the potential for skill to make the deciding difference, and thus, start off from a roughly equal platform. Points values, in general, help do that, even if they're not perfect. There's a reason basically every tabletop game in existence uses them in one form or another.
If they didn't care about losing, they'd be OK to give their opponent an advantage.
There's a difference between being "ok with losing" and not wanting to play a hugely uphill battle. I think you're conflating the two here.
And if they really were even half as good as they pretend on the Internet, they'd win anyways, even with the odds against them..
Usually not, God is on the side of the bigger battalion for a reason. Especially in a game where so many things that go into a real battle (e.g. choosing the engagement location, logistics, command & control, etc) don't play any part.
No matter how good you are, if you're playing at a significant advantage, unless your opponent is wildly incompetent, you're going to lose far more times than you're going to eke out a win. Everyone has had their "snatch victory from the jaws of defeat story", but they're typically rare and memorable for a reason.
if you show up with thirty Chaos Knights, two Hellcannons, a Bloodthirster, and Archaon, against my line of twelve Goblins and a single Shaman, well, sorry, no matter how good I am, I'm not winning that, skill will play zero part in determining victory.
None of those games are "fair", either. They all depend on a lot of luck and listbuilding to eke out advantage before the first die is thrown. If people were about fairness and skill, they'd play Chess or Go, and accept that a lot of games would be auto-loss / auto-win simply based on the skill of their opponent.
We're not talking perfect fairness, but "fair enough". Sure, there's all sorts of problems a lot of these other games have, but they're not on anything near what AoS (and increasingly, 40k) face. And, probably even more to the point, AoS faces the problem of a lot of "unknown unknowns".
Likewise, Chess isn't perfectly fair either, White will typically win ~55% of the time due to first turn advantage, but most people can live with a gap like that. But that's not what we're talking about in this case.
JohnHwangDD wrote: If people were honest, they would admit that they cannot accept losing, so they need a points system that allows them to eke out some advantage that GW never intended, but a comp system that prevents their opponents for doing the same.
This, BTW, is the Wraithknight "problem" in a nutshell. People want their extra-strong Titans and other super units, but they don't like that WKs totally fething *wreck* them, so that's "unfair". Despite the WK being grossly overpriced in a Titan-free environment.
By what standard? They pack weaponry that can remove high value targets with exceptional capable every turn, and engage at least two such targets every turn, while being extremely mobile, with high toughness and half a dozen wounds, and a large number of high strength CC attacks to boot. The vast majority of people don't play with Titans, most players have never seen a Titan and have never had one as part of their play experience, yet still have major problems with Wraithknights. They are certainly more than a match for their equivalent points in battle tanks, be they Hammerheads, Predators, Russ Tanks, Fire Prisms, etc, and likewise most MC's such as Trygons, Wraithlords, Carnifexes, Taloses, Avatars, Riptides, etc.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Until people can dartboard any army (absolute internal balance) and have them all match evenly against every constructed army (absolute external balance), points are broken.
And that is a complete and total misunderstanding of how balance is supposed to work. No one would ever suggest that an army that comes to say a 40k game with no anti tank weapons should have an equal chance of beating an all vehicle army.
That's a fething lie, and you know it. GW added a giant-killer provisions for Sudden Victory in AoS.
No, GW added a horde-killer provision with Sudden Death. Since there's no real limit on how many elite troops/monsters/giant killy death machines you can bring, it really only penalizes groups that need to heavily outnumber the enemy.
Good thing they curbed all those unfluffy goblin and skaven swarms!
I think the most interesting thing about this is the sudden upswing in people vehemently against the concept of points now that Age of Sigmar's done away with them. You know, I heard a lot of talk about how GW is bad at using points (or, for the more cynical crowd, how GW was using deliberate points imbalances to sell new models), but I never heard anyone hating on the use of points themselves, or decrying them as useless...up until now, anyway.
Spinner wrote: I think the most interesting thing about this is the sudden upswing in people vehemently against the concept of points now that Age of Sigmar's done away with them. You know, I heard a lot of talk about how GW is bad at using points (or, for the more cynical crowd, how GW was using deliberate points imbalances to sell new models), but I never heard anyone hating on the use of points themselves, or decrying them as useless...up until now, anyway.
I forget if it was this thread or another but I have said it before on this sub forum that I had NEVER heard anyone asking for GW to remove points before AoS was released. The support for this sprang up the day it was announced.
@Vakathi - so points will automatically prevent curbstomp battles in 40k? How does that Possesed - Mutiliator - Defiler force of yours do on the tabletop against equal points of Imperial Knights? Fair battles every time, right?
If the requirement isn't prefect balance, then why is AoS held to a different standard? Nobody has shown any basis for explaining why the mk.1 eyeball is any worse than a points system, especially when employed by such experienced players as you all hold yourselves to be.
Your Chaos vs Gobbo example is a good example of the mk.1 eyeball at work. You're saying it would actually come up on the tabletop among players trying for a "fair" game? Really?
If a 55-45 advantage is OK in Chess (and assuming equal ratings), why isn't it OK in AoS? You're saying you have no ability to eyeball armies within 10%? Yet you just pulled that Chaos v Gobbo thing out your ass?
The WK is overpriced against fodder, and you know it. That's why you rattled off a list of superior units. And it's why the WK isn't free.
____
@jono - actually it absolutely is. Dartboarding an army should produce a valid result, particularly in the sort of limited turns, objective-based game that 40k has become. Same with WM/H - if all the tools were priced properly (which they are not)...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spinner wrote: I think the most interesting thing about this is the sudden upswing in people vehemently against the concept of points now that Age of Sigmar's done away with them. You know, I heard a lot of talk about how GW is bad at using points (or, for the more cynical crowd, how GW was using deliberate points imbalances to sell new models), but I never heard anyone hating on the use of points themselves, or decrying them as useless...up until now, anyway.
Nobody thought about playing without points until GW released AoS.
It's like nobody knew they needed a smartphone until Apple released the iPhone.
That's a fething lie, and you know it. GW added a giant-killer provisions for Sudden Victory in AoS.
No, GW added a horde-killer provision with Sudden Death. Since there's no real limit on how many elite troops/monsters/giant killy death machines you can bring, it really only penalizes groups that need to heavily outnumber the enemy.
Good thing they curbed all those unfluffy goblin and skaven swarms!
I think the most interesting thing about this is the sudden upswing in people vehemently against the concept of points now that Age of Sigmar's done away with them. You know, I heard a lot of talk about how GW is bad at using points (or, for the more cynical crowd, how GW was using deliberate points imbalances to sell new models), but I never heard anyone hating on the use of points themselves, or decrying them as useless...up until now, anyway.
Yeah, Sudden Death really seems to work far more in the favor of armies that bring the giant killy things than against them, as they'll typically be the ones outnumbered and getting to pick the Sudden Death objective.
And yeah, never heard people actually have a problem with the fundamental concept of a points system until AoS came out. Lots of problems with specific implementations, but never with the underlying idea, especially with anything near the vehemency shown by some now.
Calling people out because they disagree with the balance of a system as people who "can't take losing", as liars, or whatever else is happening here is not at all polite. Rule 1 holds, and if you step over that line again you're done for a goodly while
They literally forgot about Skarsnik (and I hope it stays that way, because he'd probably come back as some sort of hybrid squig monstrosity fueled by Waaagh! energy instead of the sneaky, tricksy dirty-fightin' gobbo we know and love), Wurrzag's gone, Morglum Necksnapper's been relegated to tidbit status for ages and so HE'S not coming back...and more importantly, the game doesn't have the sort of setting to help bring forth the kind of characters I liked best, which were the fun little people in the background. There's no place in Age of Sigmar for a ratcatcher and his small but vicious dog. There's no place for a scruffy Border Prince that rose to power by literal backstabbing before being deposed and exiled half a week later. There's no place for the kindly old asylum owner who takes care of all those poor people who keep babbling about giant rats in the sewers - or, for that matter, the sewer jack who has to go down and deal with them. They just don't fit anywhere in the world.
) fire while their battle-brothers are engaged in a swirling, frantic melee with a mob of frenzied orks without causing a massive friendly fire incident. If you're going to have shooting in or into melee, there needs to be a chance to account for accidentally hitting an ally, and it's really immersion breaking when there isn't.
