And of those two tactics only the minimum drops so you get second turn priority is a specific anti-secondturn attempt at a list. The powerful alpha strike is always a good solid plan in games without the doubleturn being a thing.

However with doubleturn it becomes far more powerful and important to take over other potential strategy options. So it drastically cuts down on strategic choice within the game.

He also quotes one of the slaanesh armies even though we all know that 3 keepers summoning more keepers is already broken in the game and is generating way too much power compared to other 2.0 armies.




In the game itself it doesn't project any attempt to mitigate the doubleturn. Again I agree with what you say. People talk about "planning for it" but have no actual plans. I think what they mean is "mentally you prepare yourself to deal with it and accept it as a thing you might get slapped with if your opponent gets it" Rather than a "plan" to actually deal and tackle with it in game terms.


I also agree that GW has a legacy of casual rules writers in competitive rules writing jobs; its the reason we still have issues with technical language and even when GW does open beta testing of some armies they still don't send out the full rules but pre-constructed armies to play against each other (from what we've heard from closed beta testing groups). It's sadly a legacy that I think GW is going to retain until new staff and new blood (eg people like Bottle) start to get into higher ranks within GW and push a culture change. That a shift from totally casual to competitive in theory with AoS turned a failing product into a success I think goes a long way to show that there IS money in that approach (more so than ultra casual). That the computergames market is going through a massive e-sports phase which is growing every year - that Magic the Gathering also has the same - it all shows that a solid foundation with a well made system can generate more income.

I played one game of AOS. It was 1000pts, I played Gitz (two Looncurse boxes, so all squigs) against Khorne. I had turn 1. I moved my units forward but couldn't really do much and new the goal was going to be to just weather the storm of khorne melee attacks and spells for a round. So I moved in ways to encourage that.

Korne gets his first turn, but I planned my movement well and I'm just out of range of his endless spells and mortal wound dealing priests. The charge phase happens. The squig herd and some very weak khorne guys get in a fight. No big issues.

Then Khorne gets a double turn, ends up dealing enough mortal wounds and wiping out effectively half my army. So now we are at the bottom of round 2 and the game essentially just became 600pts vs 800 pts due to the double turn. Not one to admit defeat I send my squig hoppers and boingrot bounders after the units dealing all the mortal wounds to me. I do a relatively good job, but end up conceding in round 3 when we tally up objectives and I realize I don't have enough models left to actually claim objectives and take the victory points.

There are a number of things I could have done differently in this situation. If I had put the squig riders on tthe same side of the board as my opponents HQ's during deployment I would have gotten them tied up much faster. However whenever I play over it in my head it always just goes back to "I should have just taken the second turn."

Between the double turn and the abundance of mortal wounds. I haven't really tried to see out a game of AOS since. I'm not against playing it, but it left a bad taste in my mouth and there are other games I would rather play.

In regards to other games existing, i agree there are but would like to play with my room full of gw models again and enjoy it. Ive got massive tomb kings, dark elves, high elves, and chaos models that id like to use.

4 page pew pew just means simplified rules. The game is far too simplified, its missing a few important components and fixates around board gamey elements instead of wargame elements.

Thats a matter if taste.

I'm on the fence atm if I want to get back into 40k or AOS. I have the urge to play Warhammer again since I can't deny it's popular. The issue is that both games have their own big problems, and I can only pick one right now and can't do both. 40k has more issues it seems as well as the potential of a "9th" edition (hopefully like AOS 2.0 was just a revision not a rewrite) coming sometime next year makes me think that AOS is in a slightly better place. But I've long thought that while AOS has its fair share of issues (the codex creep and double turn being the most egregious) that AOS at least has something of a care towards rules, even if they get it wrong or purposely make things imbalanced (which we have no true idea and enough reasons it could be either). AOS at leat has standardized language and rules, for the most part. It doesn't have soup in the same way as 40k that dominates and punishes mono-armies. Even though there are outliers like Slaanesh out there, you see a decent mix of armies doing well in AOS even if they do have a single "tournament" build (which really isn't all that bad; there will always be a "best" build) and you do sometimes see non-tournament builds performing decently.

Quite the conundrum.

I don't want to feel like I am jumping on some "Plz nerf Bonereapers" bandwagon. I am not. It is just the only faction I currently have experience with. However, my limited experience has thinking that the Mortek Guard and Chaos Warriors are actually pretty close mechanically. I might be wrong with some of this, I believe they are the same amount of points per wound with the same save, have pretty close weapon options though I think the Mortek ones are better Rend swords, +3H, +3 wound 2" reach weapons (that probably aren't an upgrade kit) and better wounding great weapon. Their Move is one inch less (making the Bonereapers not feel as slow to me a people like to point out) and don't seem to have Mortal Wound protection. Chaos Warriors do get marks to help in fighting, but if given the Bravery buff come short of the Mortek Guard. However, Guard have 6=2 hits which seems far more impressive than re-rolling 1s.

It does have me what should be the differences between Chaos Warriors and Mortek Guard? Personally, I think the Warriors should be the more killy of the two and the less durable. That just seems like how Slaves of Darkness should compare to Bonereapers. But right now, it seems that S2D are slightly more durable and a noticeable amount less killy that bonereapers to me.

***

As for the Double Turn thing. It is far too early for me to solidify my opinion on it. However, I can definitely see if being very disruptive to the game. In my game when it happened it just sped up my losing. I can also say that games that have alternating activation or random activation (like Bolt Action) stacking cheap units to control the flow of activations is very much a thing. How I have been activation juggled in those games by good opponents. Fortunately, most of the time there is a limit in those sort games to how much activation stacking a player can effectively do since cheap units still cost points and there gets to be a tipping point where the points for more control come at the cost of effective units. Age of Sigmar doesn't really have those controls. So I can see a lot of plans can be thrown out a window to the whims of luck.

I almost think it would be better of AoS to go the same route as Kill Team if they want to roll for Initiative each round in that there isn't any choice--higher roll player goes first. Which still makes factions like GSC very tough to play since you can say plan for not getting Initiative all you want, but having a glass hammer team that really has get the first swing in game where going first is 50/50 and making charges is inherently risky beyond 2". There is simply little planing I see that can be done beyond the already stated mental preparation that it can happen. Keeping your units at a distance makes just another stage of luck to make longer charge rolls. No really plan there beyond what you think is a safe distance.

The difference is that Slaves to Darkness also have access to a lot of cheaper units such as the Marauders and Warcry Warbands. They've also access to the four demon armies as well. So they've a huge amount of potential variety.

Bonereapers are very single focused in their design. This means that they reinforce each other really well; but it also leaves gaps. They also can't take allies, but can take mercenaries if the game you're playing allows for it (and you've not taken either Nagash and/or Arkhan).

So Slaves to Darkness can pull tricks like cheap chaff units; harrasment units; faster moving units etc... Demons also bring a host of special abilities and niches of their own. They might take one body of warriors as a core of their power and then use a lot more cheaper marauders/warcry warbands to chock up the battlefield and deny/secure points. Reapers can't repeat that tactic and have to rely on their fewer numbers.

 Overread wrote:
The difference is that Slaves to Darkness also have access to a lot of cheaper units such as the Marauders and Warcry Warbands. They've also access to the four demon armies as well. So they've a huge amount of potential variety.

Bonereapers are very single focused in their design. This means that they reinforce each other really well; but it also leaves gaps. They also can't take allies, but can take mercenaries if the game you're playing allows for it (and you've not taken either Nagash and/or Arkhan).

So Slaves to Darkness can pull tricks like cheap chaff units; harrasment units; faster moving units etc... Demons also bring a host of special abilities and niches of their own. They might take one body of warriors as a core of their power and then use a lot more cheaper marauders/warcry warbands to chock up the battlefield and deny/secure points. Reapers can't repeat that tactic and have to rely on their fewer numbers.

So Bonereapers aren't broken because they only a few units that are good where Slave to Darkness are fine because they have access to a bunch of middling units and allies? If I like Chaos Warriors and Chaos Knights am I SOL? I have to buy a bigger collection, buy units that provide the a similar role but I don't like and more battletombs to have good army? Maybe I just the Bonereaper Battletomb then and have my Chaos Warriors count as Mortek Guard and Knights as Deathriders. Because my collection is always going to have gaps. Might has well play the faction that buffs that out of game.

Maybe Everchosen should just be two units: Archaon and Varangaurd. Both units can have unlimited Wounds, automatically hit/wound and have bunch of other powers. But it is fair because they only have two units to pick from and being really expensive points wise (money too) they won't be able to control the table well. Sound crazy? That is just an unrealistic exaggeration of what you are trying to say. But it also slippery slope too, so I not advocating it, just illustrating my point with it. I don't see a lack of unit options being a draw back that allows a faction to have overpowered units. Nor do I think a faction that has a lot of options have their individual units weaker because of it. That both assumes the player with faction bought all those models to have those options and then sussed out which ones or which combinations of them are the good ones. If just creates a worst situation of a lot of false options and beginner traps for the player with a lot of options and gives the player with the few options faction little to work with.

As a side, I am not sure where this idea comes from that Slaves of Darkness has faster moving units comes from. People are aware that Deathriders have a 12" right? Which is faster than Chaos Knights. About the only thing that can keep up is Winged Demon Princes and Chaos Marauder Horsemen. Like I said Chaos Warriors have Move 1" faster than Mortek Guard. They aren't going to running circles around them.

I apologize in advance if that sounds a little aggressive. I am reading it as a possible explanation more than a rationalization to the whys. It does bother me as an explanation as it keeps coming up in the miniatures war games I play. I didn't think it was fair that German WWII players had bad National Traits in Bolt Action 1st edition and people defending it with the idea they have tons more unit options available to them. I have the same issue with CSM. Just because I can take Cultists doesn't mean Chaos Space Marines should be objectively weaker than their loyalist counter parts. That just creates false choices. I don't believe in more options means more better. Bad options are often worst than no option since they shouldn't be done anyways and often just clutter or create static.

Everything Warhammer is tainted by IGOUGO and how Initiative affects that. Especially skirmish games, where a double turn is exaggerated even more.

I have so much more fun with games that alternating activations, or even hybrids, where they are Alternating at their core but then you've got resources that can be used to manipulate how/when units are activated. (Like how games like Draculas America use a card ante where you are gambling versus your opponent for who goes when for each activation)

Saturmorn I think the core problem is that you're currently comparing a brand new 2.0 functional army which is, to all intents and purposes, a very durable, if expensive (in points) army against a similar style of army made from a large army force, which has no Battletome.

So your impressions are getting confused because you're basically comparing an army which works with one which doesn't. I think your comparisons will be better in a few weeks time when the new Battletome for Slaves to Darkness is released.



As an aside its important to realise that, ideally, armies are balanced as a whole army. Therefore whilst Slaves to Darkness can take a whole army of Chaos Warriors and Knights and heck it might even have a sub-army option to do just that in the new Tome; it might be a themed list. That is to say you're taking a specific theme and running with it. Themed lists can be very powerful, but they can also leave you with "Gap" that other units in the army fill in.


As an example your chaos army with all warriors and knights (under new rules) might well be tough and hard hitting; however it might lack mobility and numbers if you are denying yourself the marauder and warcry cultist models. That's ok, that's a tactical choice its just like an Ossiarch player denying themselves ranged attacks by not taking a crawler. However its important to realise what the list is giving you and what its not.



Again these chats are currently tainted by Slaves not having a tome - even in an ideal match up with a perfectly build slaves army at present you're underpowered compared to every 2.0 army (pretty much). Slaves also appear to really suffer with this whilst armies like Seraphon have done ok (and have also been really popular as a theme too, which helps).

I think I would be more inclined to play AOS again if I could find an army that I liked which was able to turn up or tone down for competitive/casual games without having to basically have two completely different versions for either.

Like for example an army where if you take more of Unit X you become more competitive, or if you swap out a few Xs for Unit Y you tone it down for less competitive games. If that makes sense at all. But most of the competitive lists seem to focus so much on a tiny handful of units that you really need to have two entirely different armies of the same faction.

Overread wrote:Saturmorn I think the core problem is that you're currently comparing a brand new 2.0 functional army which is, to all intents and purposes, a very durable, if expensive (in points) army against a similar style of army made from a large army force, which has no Battletome.
Again these chats are currently tainted by Slaves not having a tome - even in an ideal match up with a perfectly build slaves army at present you're underpowered compared to every 2.0 army (pretty much). Slaves also appear to really suffer with this whilst armies like Seraphon have done ok (and have also been really popular as a theme too, which helps).

Again, that's not the problem. The problem is that anyone considers this answer an acceptable explanation.
It's bs that some armies are vastly inferior like this. GW deserves to loose every customer that walks away because of this.

Wayniac wrote:
I think I would be more inclined to play AOS again if I could find an army that I liked which was able to turn up or tone down for competitive/casual games without having to basically have two completely different versions for either.

Like for example an army where if you take more of Unit X you become more competitive, or if you swap out a few Xs for Unit Y you tone it down for less competitive games. If that makes sense at all. But most of the competitive lists seem to focus so much on a tiny handful of units that you really need to have two entirely different armies of the same faction.

There are some armies that are easily scalable. Skaven run the whole line of having some of the worst choices in the game up to their tier-1 tourney status, but it is easy to have a core army that scales up or down based on its character choices. Fyreslayers are extremely simple to scale (more hearthguard berzerkers = better), Slaanesh can actually be scaled well based on hero investment/number of KoS, Stormcast can scale based on unit choices (liberators/paladins for low scale, sequitors/evocators for higher end). There's others but I can't recall them at the moment.

 DarkBlack wrote:

Overread wrote:Saturmorn I think the core problem is that you're currently comparing a brand new 2.0 functional army which is, to all intents and purposes, a very durable, if expensive (in points) army against a similar style of army made from a large army force, which has no Battletome.
Again these chats are currently tainted by Slaves not having a tome - even in an ideal match up with a perfectly build slaves army at present you're underpowered compared to every 2.0 army (pretty much). Slaves also appear to really suffer with this whilst armies like Seraphon have done ok (and have also been really popular as a theme too, which helps).

Again, that's not the problem. The problem is that anyone considers this answer an acceptable explanation.
It's bs that some armies are vastly inferior like this. GW deserves to loose every customer that walks away because of this.

Well considering that 2.0 is only 1.5 years old and GW has been updating them 1 battletome per month (on average) since then. Based on the 30odd years of GW's history that's a pretty good rate in the last 20 years or so in terms of rule updates. And that's before we consider that AoS until 2.0 had multiple major product focus swings. It started life as a boutique model line with casual rules. Slaves were not alone and I agree that its a pain that Slaves and other armies were left out in the cold and that we lost High Elf models (as well as some key dwarven cannon) and such. However come December 14th Slaves will be updated.

Personally I think one can either hold a grudge or look to the future. Granted go back to AoS at launch and I was right there with many in being very dissapointed with GW's direction - however since 2.0 they've really turned it around.

While things like the three keeper of secrets list exists that can essentially plow most any other list over with little effort barring a certain hard counter, and while that situation ALWAYS exists, i wouldnt be saying anything about gw knocking it out of the park as it pertains to the game.

There's always something so grossly out of power and has been grossly out of power the entire lifespan of AOS since they pushed their first GHB and got rid of fan comps in favor of an official point system again.

Overread wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:

Overread wrote:Saturmorn I think the core problem is that you're currently comparing a brand new 2.0 functional army which is, to all intents and purposes, a very durable, if expensive (in points) army against a similar style of army made from a large army force, which has no Battletome.
Again these chats are currently tainted by Slaves not having a tome - even in an ideal match up with a perfectly build slaves army at present you're underpowered compared to every 2.0 army (pretty much). Slaves also appear to really suffer with this whilst armies like Seraphon have done ok (and have also been really popular as a theme too, which helps).

Again, that's not the problem. The problem is that anyone considers this answer an acceptable explanation.
It's bs that some armies are vastly inferior like this. GW deserves to loose every customer that walks away because of this.

Well considering that 2.0 is only 1.5 years old and GW has been updating them 1 battletome per month (on average) since then. Based on the 30odd years of GW's history that's a pretty good rate in the last 20 years or so in terms of rule updates. And that's before we consider that AoS until 2.0 had multiple major product focus swings. It started life as a boutique model line with casual rules. Slaves were not alone and I agree that its a pain that Slaves and other armies were left out in the cold and that we lost High Elf models (as well as some key dwarven cannon) and such. However come December 14th Slaves will be updated.

Why does the age of the game matter? How long after release should we give GW to get the game right?

Mantic released Kings of War 3rd edition last month and it's balanced just fine. You sure as feth can't predict the out come of the a game before it starts based on the factions being played. The rest of the armies (the lists that Mantic don't make minis for) are being released soon and we're not expecting those to be significantly better or worse than the armies in the rulebook (yes, all the armies are in those two books).

Wyrd released Malifaux third edition less than six, months ago and that game is also balanced well enough. All the new cards were relesead in faction packs with the new rules.

Corvus Belli has been releasing new factions as they go. Some of their faction have been left behind and have even gone OOP, but rules for those factions are still supported and playing them doesn't mean that you're getting stomped in that game (your games may be a little harder).

Gasland got a re-release recently too and it's balanced better now, things have been fixed.
I know that Warhammer is more complex than Gaslands, but Mike is a guy who published a rulebook and GW is multi-million Pound company. In fact all of these companies are smaller than GW, but somehow they can have a games balanced well enough at release.

Personally I think one can either hold a grudge or look to the future. Granted go back to AoS at launch and I was right there with many in being very dissapointed with GW's direction - however since 2.0 they've really turned it around.

There's also calling GW out on their bs and looking to other games, from companies who care about putting out a good game.
40k 8th edition made me realise what "the future" with GW looks like. They had a new edition with better rules. They had indexes with armies on roughly the same level. They had a chance to turn things around.
Then they started releasing codexes a few months later. I would have liked more use out of my index, but that was alright.
Armies with codexes were better though. Fine, give them a chance to get all the rules out.
Some codexes were better than others. Not even the new ones, just the ones GW seemed to favour. How did they feth that up? If the wanted to do it right they could have, but they chose not to. AGAIN
That's when I realised that they had no intention to. The next thing your hopes are pinned to for a better game is to string you along.



That's and awfully salty rant and I don't usually like to see negativity spewed like that. I have a reason and a point though.
A new player had a horrible play experience and we're lucky they didn't quit the hobby because of it.
Someone should say that GW is to blame for that. Not the new player's mindset. Not they new player choosing an army they like. GW not bothering to make their game properly.
The hobby isn't like that. GW is like that.

 DarkBlack wrote:

40k 8th edition made me realise what "the future" with GW looks like. They had a new edition with better rules. They had indexes with armies on roughly the same level. They had a chance to turn things around.
Then they started releasing codexes a few months later. I would have liked more use out of my index, but that was alright.
Armies with codexes were better though. Fine, give them a chance to get all the rules out.
Some codexes were better than others. Not even the new ones, just the ones GW seemed to favour. How did they feth that up? If the wanted to do it right they could have, but they chose not to. AGAIN
That's when I realised that they had no intention to. The next thing your hopes are pinned to for a better game is to string you along.

I see that you're relatively new to GW games....

See, GWs been using this model for at least 30 years. Maybe longer, but I'm not familiar with WFB 1st or 2nd edition. They aren't going to stop.

ccs wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:

40k 8th edition made me realise what "the future" with GW looks like. They had a new edition with better rules. They had indexes with armies on roughly the same level. They had a chance to turn things around.
Then they started releasing codexes a few months later. I would have liked more use out of my index, but that was alright.
Armies with codexes were better though. Fine, give them a chance to get all the rules out.
Some codexes were better than others. Not even the new ones, just the ones GW seemed to favour. How did they feth that up? If the wanted to do it right they could have, but they chose not to. AGAIN
That's when I realised that they had no intention to. The next thing your hopes are pinned to for a better game is to string you along.

I see that you're relatively new to GW games....

See, GWs been using this model for at least 30 years. Maybe longer, but I'm not familiar with WFB 1st or 2nd edition. They aren't going to stop.

So why do people keep going on about how much better 8e 40k/AoS is than everything that's come before?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

ccs wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:

40k 8th edition made me realise what "the future" with GW looks like. They had a new edition with better rules. They had indexes with armies on roughly the same level. They had a chance to turn things around.
Then they started releasing codexes a few months later. I would have liked more use out of my index, but that was alright.
Armies with codexes were better though. Fine, give them a chance to get all the rules out.
Some codexes were better than others. Not even the new ones, just the ones GW seemed to favour. How did they feth that up? If the wanted to do it right they could have, but they chose not to. AGAIN
That's when I realised that they had no intention to. The next thing your hopes are pinned to for a better game is to string you along.

I see that you're relatively new to GW games....

See, GWs been using this model for at least 30 years. Maybe longer, but I'm not familiar with WFB 1st or 2nd edition. They aren't going to stop.

So why do people keep going on about how much better 8e 40k/AoS is than everything that's come before?

Honestly? The miniatures. That is the first thing people see and in that regard the gulf of first impressions between GW and Mantic is difficult to put into words. Humans are very bad at using objective reasoning to overcome their first impressions.

Pretty much. The number of people here and in various groups that have all but admitted they really don't care about a quality game just good miniatures is astounding. The language you see used when people talk about AOS/40K shows this:

"Great models to put together"
"These were an absolute joy to paint"
"Love these models!"

And so on. Never anything about how they like the rules or think the army has a cool theme or whatnot, it's always gushing about the models to the exclusion of all else. You find this elsewhere too but not to the same level.

So again I say the GW fanbase accepts mediocrity for whatever reason, either because they play in a group that doesn't see an issue with having to fix rules themselves, because they've never seen anything outside the GW bubble so don't get why GW rules are bad, or some other reason. Some people actually think the rules are good which, while they're entitled to their opinion, I find absolutely ludicrous to think.

In fairness one model might take an hour to clean and several hours to paint. One single model on the table might represent the same amount of time as a single game. So when you put 30 models down that might be 30 weeks worth of games (assuming one game per week).

I get that, of course, but one would think there would be more concern about the actual game. But it really does seem like a lot of people don't care about playing (or play so infrequently that it doesn't matter) and really just buy a ton of models to paint up and stick on a shelf somewhere. Either that or they are so devoted to GW that they just can't see a good game because they're too caught up in the models the company sells (even when the models they sell aren't a requirement to use)

If you query tabletop gamers in general, quality of game is a top concern.

If you break those gamers into their primary games, aos and 40k players have quality of game far down their list of cares. Models are high yes but so too is size of community.

Size of community is paramount. For tournament sizes, for safety in investment knowing you have games to play, to a large base to profit personally from with pay wall blogs, pay wall battle reports, paywall discords and coaching patreons.

If joes game shop pushed out aos with the same models, i strongly believe no one would give it a second look other than to use the models in other games.

Ive seen many people post that very thing. Joe sledoba on tga is famous for tearing into people that complain about aos and had an enlightening post where he commented he had tens of thousands invested in gw in both miniatures and stock (as in the market) and was protecting his investment.

Its been a fascinating trip down learning lane for me over the past going on five years now of the death of whfb and aos replacing it. Doing azyr comp and seeing the complaints about too much balance legit surprised me.

But go to a kings of war or warmachine group and ask them how important the game is and see the stark difference in results.

Wayniac wrote:
Pretty much. The number of people here and in various groups that have all but admitted they really don't care about a quality game just good miniatures is astounding. The language you see used when people talk about AOS/40K shows this:

"Great models to put together"
"These were an absolute joy to paint"
"Love these models!"

And so on. Never anything about how they like the rules or think the army has a cool theme or whatnot, it's always gushing about the models to the exclusion of all else. You find this elsewhere too but not to the same level.

So again I say the GW fanbase accepts mediocrity for whatever reason, either because they play in a group that doesn't see an issue with having to fix rules themselves, because they've never seen anything outside the GW bubble so don't get why GW rules are bad, or some other reason. Some people actually think the rules are good which, while they're entitled to their opinion, I find absolutely ludicrous to think.

People accept GW mediocrity because its an easy game. Not everyone wants to play something as strict and precise as Warmachine or as complex as Malifaux or Infinity. Sometimes people just want to get cool models on a table, throw dice and have a laugh without having to think too hard.

Having a "one stop shop" is also a big thing. Having recently gotten into historical gaming it's like night and day NOT having a single manufacturer to order everything from, or having a game store that's well-stocked you can just run down to pick up a box.

 Sim-Life wrote:


People accept GW mediocrity because its an easy game. Not everyone wants to play something as strict and precise as Warmachine or as complex as Malifaux or Infinity. Sometimes people just want to get cool models on a table, throw dice and have a laugh without having to think too hard.

Pretty much this. Whfb was in the weird spot where it was a bad game compared to other offerings even at the time, but also in love with complexity for the sake of some minor tabletop effects. AoS is still, compared to more complex and thought out rules, a bad game, but it's boiled down to that simple core, so if all you want is have a nice game of moving toy soldiers and having some chance of winning because you were better than the opponent, it works perfectly fine. Neither system was/is as involved as Malifaux (which I'm sure I will enjoy again, once 3rd edition rulebook is released to the masses) or Infinity or say, Tomorrow's War.

So why do people keep going on about how much better 8e 40k/AoS is than everything that's come before?

The rules were cleaned up and it's a really low bar.

Sim-Life wrote:People accept GW mediocrity because its an easy game. Not everyone wants to play something as strict and precise as Warmachine or as complex as Malifaux or Infinity. Sometimes people just want to get cool models on a table, throw dice and have a laugh without having to think too hard.

Ever heard of Gaslands or Frostgrave? D&D 5e?
Mantic games are not hard to learn either, because they are well written and designed to be. Winning takes some thinking, depending on how well your opponent plays though.

Perhaps its simple to explain it that what people enjoy does not have to be the best of the best in all matters and that enjoyment does not always correlate to a given concept of best.

GW has strengths and weaknesses like any other company and whilst there are some clear areas where they can improve their system is not so horrifically bad that its beyond enjoyment.

their system is not so horrifically bad that its beyond enjoyment.

Well actually thats exactly the schism lol. We all have different bars of enjoyment you need to adhere to. There are no perfect games.

But at the very least I will not play a game where if i show up with a faction that I'm dead on arrival nor will I play a game that if my opponent decides hes going to field a certain build that I'm dead on arrival. Especially if I'm paying hundreds of dollars and hundreds of hours of my time hobbying it to participate. Thats my bar, and GW has not been able to give me that one request yet.

 DarkBlack wrote:

So why do people keep going on about how much better 8e 40k/AoS is than everything that's come before?

The rules were cleaned up and it's a really low bar.

Sim-Life wrote:People accept GW mediocrity because its an easy game. Not everyone wants to play something as strict and precise as Warmachine or as complex as Malifaux or Infinity. Sometimes people just want to get cool models on a table, throw dice and have a laugh without having to think too hard.

Ever heard of Gaslands or Frostgrave? D&D 5e?
Mantic games are not hard to learn either, because they are well written and designed to be. Winning takes some thinking, depending on how well your opponent plays though.

Yeah but you know who plays Frostgrave and Gaslands? Hardly anyone. Its much easier to find people who play 40k or AoS because most people starting the hobby start with Warhammer and already have a financial and time investment in it. D&D isn't even comparible, its a totally different type of game and social commitment, I don't even know why you'd think to compare that.

And the reason people hardly play frostgrave and gaslands is because... often anyway... everyone is playing GW games instead and people want to go where everyone else is playing. Its all about where everyone is playing not how good the game is in general.

Having to rely on pickup games sounds like hell, not gonna lie :(

I think thats probably the closest source to truth. A lot of people just want random pick up games, and that REQUIRES a huge pool of players.

Smaller games... you won't get that. Sometimes at all. Frostgrave requires some organization and is suited for campaign play which is not a popular thing.

Cronch wrote:
Having to rely on pickup games sounds like hell, not gonna lie :(

It can be. The issue is that you have a circle:

Everyone plays AOS/40k so nobody wants to try any other game because everyone plays AOS/40k and there's no guarantee anyone will want to play a new game, so everyone keeps playing AOS/40k in spite of it.

Like auticus says, there's this sort of "path of least resistance" approach, which is a big reason Warhammer is so dominant. Stores don't support other games, people don't care to look at them because they aren't sure if anyone else would want to play them. Warhammer is the "comfortable" choice that you can be reasonably certain will have game store support and a large number of players in your area. Both of those things, in the USA at least, are pretty huge. A game store has a massively unbalanced amount of power in regards to what games get played because they are often seen as the "hub" of gaming. A game not sold at the game store is unlikely to get any traction from the players if the store even allows people to play it there in the first place.

I'm not sure what the rules are about promoting your own posts, but his is an interesting discussion, so I decided to create a poll over on Dakka Discussion.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:

So why do people keep going on about how much better 8e 40k/AoS is than everything that's come before?

The rules were cleaned up and it's a really low bar.

Sim-Life wrote:People accept GW mediocrity because its an easy game. Not everyone wants to play something as strict and precise as Warmachine or as complex as Malifaux or Infinity. Sometimes people just want to get cool models on a table, throw dice and have a laugh without having to think too hard.

Ever heard of Gaslands or Frostgrave? D&D 5e?
Mantic games are not hard to learn either, because they are well written and designed to be. Winning takes some thinking, depending on how well your opponent plays though.

Yeah but you know who plays Frostgrave and Gaslands? Hardly anyone. Its much easier to find people who play 40k or AoS because most people starting the hobby start with Warhammer and already have a financial and time investment in it. D&D isn't even comparible, its a totally different type of game and social commitment, I don't even know why you'd think to compare that.

You know what part of the point might be? Pointing out that GW is full of gak so that people might consider trying other games.
Those two are low investment games that are the easiest to get going.

I was responding to:

Sometimes people just want to get cool models on a table, throw dice and have a laugh without having to think too hard.

D&D 5e is great for that. The point being that there are other ways to get that kind of experience.

Except the games you mentioned aren't wargames. D&D especially is nothing like a wargame. Frostgrave is the closest, but the analogous games would still be Necromunda, Kill Team, and Warcry.

I'd be happy to jump in on a KoW, Conquest, or whatever other wargame that offers better rules. But I can't play them. There's no day I can show up and get pick-up games, and if I join a schedules league it means I could end up driving an hour to meet with someone. I can't just play the game I have to jump through hoops to get to the point where models are being put on the table.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

ccs wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:

40k 8th edition made me realise what "the future" with GW looks like. They had a new edition with better rules. They had indexes with armies on roughly the same level. They had a chance to turn things around.
Then they started releasing codexes a few months later. I would have liked more use out of my index, but that was alright.
Armies with codexes were better though. Fine, give them a chance to get all the rules out.
Some codexes were better than others. Not even the new ones, just the ones GW seemed to favour. How did they feth that up? If the wanted to do it right they could have, but they chose not to. AGAIN
That's when I realised that they had no intention to. The next thing your hopes are pinned to for a better game is to string you along.

I see that you're relatively new to GW games....

See, GWs been using this model for at least 30 years. Maybe longer, but I'm not familiar with WFB 1st or 2nd edition. They aren't going to stop.

So why do people keep going on about how much better 8e 40k/AoS is than everything that's come before?

Some editions are better than previous ones.
Current AoS IS better than it's original incarnation. 40k 8e? My opinion is 50/50. I like about as much of it as I dislike. Wich is an improvement from 6th/7th 40k for me.
AoS is largely a completely different game from WHFB. So I will not judge AoS based on WHFB. They play differently & I can enjoy both.

But that doesn't have anything to do with GWs pattern on how they make books.
They make the base game. And then they add stuff. Armies, special rules, new expansions, etc etc etc. Some of these are great, some awful, etc. And they keep doing this until: The system completely breaks, sales decline to some point, they've written themselves into the proverbial corner/run out of ideas, or they come up with something completely different for the core that just can't be shoehorned into the edition as it exists. Then they put out a new edition & the treadmill begins anew.

Which is just the result of GW's design method

They don't design/make a game, they design models, design a rule book and design faction books

each independent from each other, one finished long before the others which makes changes hard to come by.


If GW designs Games, and has the possibility to test it, the results are quite good. Kill Team, Warcry or Apocalypse as an example.

Problem is, if there is no game, testing is also pointless and adjustments can only be made to a half finished product.

I have a relatively enjoyable community (minus a couple arrogant people who think the sun sets when they sit down). The manager at my local GW has become a friend by this point, and I love going there for painting, playing, or generally just hanging out. It’s good community, awesome models, and I’ve got too much going on at this point for “complicated and difficult to find people to play with”. So I went back to my original roots with GW. And not at all disappointed. Some games will be hard, some easy. But it’s rewarding for me as it is now.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Except the games you mentioned aren't wargames. D&D especially is nothing like a wargame. Frostgrave is the closest, but the analogous games would still be Necromunda, Kill Team, and Warcry.

I'd be happy to jump in on a KoW, Conquest, or whatever other wargame that offers better rules. But I can't play them. There's no day I can show up and get pick-up games, and if I join a schedules league it means I could end up driving an hour to meet with someone. I can't just play the game I have to jump through hoops to get to the point where models are being put on the table.

Thats the roughest spot for me recruiting conquest.

“Its a great game and awesome but i cant get pickup games when i want”

We have a monthly get together and a regular league starting in january. But i doubt we will get beyond 15 players until a year has passed and people see us still playing.

 auticus wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Except the games you mentioned aren't wargames. D&D especially is nothing like a wargame. Frostgrave is the closest, but the analogous games would still be Necromunda, Kill Team, and Warcry.

I'd be happy to jump in on a KoW, Conquest, or whatever other wargame that offers better rules. But I can't play them. There's no day I can show up and get pick-up games, and if I join a schedules league it means I could end up driving an hour to meet with someone. I can't just play the game I have to jump through hoops to get to the point where models are being put on the table.

Thats the roughest spot for me recruiting conquest.

“Its a great game and awesome but i cant get pickup games when i want”

We have a monthly get together and a regular league starting in january. But i doubt we will get beyond 15 players until a year has passed and people see us still playing.

The irony here is that for all the people who say how they can't find anyone who plays certain games if they all played the other game there would be enough for pickup games.

That is a strange argument. How does the fact that something has a new leadership now, somehow change the stuff that happened in the past. Because that ends with bad things happening to you over and over again. Specially as the new GW doesn't seem to be very new. The design team, and the people that decide in the end what rules stay and which don't are the same people that worked a few years ago.

Plus if someone things that the wrong done to him was substential, a change of leadership means nothing. My grandmother hated germans and russians till the day she died.

Wayniac wrote:

 auticus wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Except the games you mentioned aren't wargames. D&D especially is nothing like a wargame. Frostgrave is the closest, but the analogous games would still be Necromunda, Kill Team, and Warcry.

I'd be happy to jump in on a KoW, Conquest, or whatever other wargame that offers better rules. But I can't play them. There's no day I can show up and get pick-up games, and if I join a schedules league it means I could end up driving an hour to meet with someone. I can't just play the game I have to jump through hoops to get to the point where models are being put on the table.

Thats the roughest spot for me recruiting conquest.

“Its a great game and awesome but i cant get pickup games when i want”

We have a monthly get together and a regular league starting in january. But i doubt we will get beyond 15 players until a year has passed and people see us still playing.

The irony here is that for all the people who say how they can't find anyone who plays certain games if they all played the other game there would be enough for pickup games.

Its certainly a self fulfilling failure yes. They don't want to risk it, and the very easy path is to just back whats popular right now. The gamers I have known my whole life tend to not really be interested in having to put a lot of effort in community building because its not an easy path to walk down.

For me it's pretty simple why I don't play AoS. I tried to get into it on a few occasions in it's lifetime (at launch, with the General's Handbook and more recently when Gloomspite released) and I've just never found it to grab me enough to justify the buyin. My main gaming group are also not interested in it on a mechanics level (same deal with 40k) even though we'd all be very interested in something GW fantasy. Blood Bowl and then Warcry scratched that itch a bit but now LotR is hitting the fantasy vibe perfectly with a game that we prefer more.

There's also the issue of the gaming industry having a glut of skirmish games and the fact that I play a lot of them. My group tends to play smaller model count games because it's lower investment, quicker to get fully painted and easier to move on to something else or come back to. They're also a lot easier to expand when I have to buy and paint just 1-2 models to add to a crew as opposed to 10-20 man units to an army. Different strokes really, the mass battle doesn't hit me like it used to and I prefer to get 2-3 games in on a gaming day instead of one slog

Wayniac wrote:

 auticus wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Except the games you mentioned aren't wargames. D&D especially is nothing like a wargame. Frostgrave is the closest, but the analogous games would still be Necromunda, Kill Team, and Warcry.

I'd be happy to jump in on a KoW, Conquest, or whatever other wargame that offers better rules. But I can't play them. There's no day I can show up and get pick-up games, and if I join a schedules league it means I could end up driving an hour to meet with someone. I can't just play the game I have to jump through hoops to get to the point where models are being put on the table.

Thats the roughest spot for me recruiting conquest.

“Its a great game and awesome but i cant get pickup games when i want”

We have a monthly get together and a regular league starting in january. But i doubt we will get beyond 15 players until a year has passed and people see us still playing.

The irony here is that for all the people who say how they can't find anyone who plays certain games if they all played the other game there would be enough for pickup games.

Yes, but you also cannot reasonably fault players for wanting to put the effort to get into a game system on what is essentially a gamble that has a long history of failure. I've been the one trying to get a foothold with a new game or game system before, and I've wound up burned by it multiple times. That happens enough and one simply does not want to bet on anything short of sure thing.

ccs wrote:
...They make the base game. And then they add stuff. Armies, special rules, new expansions, etc etc etc. Some of these are great, some awful, etc. And they keep doing this until: The system completely breaks, sales decline to some point, they've written themselves into the proverbial corner/run out of ideas, or they come up with something completely different for the core that just can't be shoehorned into the edition as it exists. Then they put out a new edition & the treadmill begins anew.

Which is why I'm not playing Sigmar. It's exactly the same barely-functional crap as came before but this time all my armies have been dissected and my choice is to play their mutilated corpses or buy a bunch of new minis I don't particularly like.

Yes, but you also cannot reasonably fault players for wanting to put the effort to get into a game system on what is essentially a gamble that has a long history of failure. I've been the one trying to get a foothold with a new game or game system before, and I've wound up burned by it multiple times. That happens enough and one simply does not want to bet on anything short of sure thing.

The cost of course is to your own morale. But I totally get it because thats why I was holding on so long and just doing house rules to make the game palatable.

And to your wallet...

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
And to your wallet...

True, but let's be honest most non-GW games aren't that pricey and often have a 2-player starter set, so you're not out THAT much money to get a 2p set for doing demos, even if nobody bites. It still sucks, of course.

To relate, my kings of war investment has been minimal because I can use my warhammer collection.

However Conquest has set me back some $$$. When I saw it at Adepticon I already made the decision I was pushing that at home, even if that meant me just playing myself and making battle reports.

That has grown and we now have (16) players in Conquest, but it started very small.

But I also backed and pushed probably a dozen games in the 2010s that no one wanted to touch, so I have also been burned on those.

I had to accept that if Conquest never caught on that I'd have to just play with one or two people with my painted models and be ok with that. I am used to running campaign events in whfb with over 50 players so that is a stark difference, but my AOS events have been anemic because AOS never fully caught fire here.

I keep getting tempted to jump into AoS because of the miniatures, but at the end of the day they don't have the same narrative behind them as any of the armies in 40k do.

Firstly, I have no idea who is doing what or where, there's no geographic frame of reference for anything, and I don't even have any incentive to learn about it in the first place because the realm gates basically make that irrelevant.

The whole setting just feels like a collage of disparate high fantasy elements without anything strong enough to tie it all together. It's all hopelessly, hopelessly, fragmented.

To make matters worse, the Stormcast are essentially there to replace humanity on the center stage. Every time we could see something different we just get more Stormcast Eternals. More and more Stormcast Eternals, never ending. I don't even find them that interesting, much for the same reasons I don't like the mortal realms.

Just like the mortal realms, the Stormcast have no identity because they're just a blank canvas, where the only defining feature that they have is how powerful they are, which as far as I'm concerned is not very interesting.

So I guess that leads me to the last point. The Stormcast are a child's power fantasy, they're basically comic book super heroes in an RPG setting. Not even Space Marines are this on the nose, where you can literally insert yourself onto them and continue on as normal.

It's at this point where the usual defense would be "but you can ignore them", to which I would say "No, you can't". As I mentioned earlier the setting has basically used Stormcast as a replacement for humanity, and they're far, far less interesting.

Ignoring Stormcast Eternals in Age of Sigmar is about as easy as ignoring an elephant in the room.

The narrative is at it's best when they began focusing on the little people.

City of Secrets
Spear of Shadows
Callis and Toll
All the Gotrek dramas
Cities of Sigmar tome.

The much maligned Stormcast actually have some interesting characterizations in a lot of the BL releases since the mostly cringey Realmgate era books.

I totally understand the whole playing games outside the GW walled garden. I did that for longer than I have played GW games. Most of those games where played by disgruntled GW players (the 40k 6th-7th edition folks) that finally had enough and crawled over the wall. A good number of them probably went back after the introduction of 8th edition 40k.

Previous Gaming Experiences Rant



What I can say is by-and-large, GW players are an incredibly hopeful lot. They will break out or start an army at the slightest hint that GW game isn't completely horrible. It seems an even split if they will just shelve their army and wait for the game to be 'balanced', 'good' or whatever they are looking for when that GW game turns out to inevitably not be. Another portion will continue just to play even if it looks like they aren't having a great deal of fun (sunk cost fallacy maybe). My experience has been, even if you do manage to get a group going outside of GW games, all it takes is the hope of an idea that this edition has turned it around this time and players will leave whatever game they are currently playing to go back. By the time they discover it isn't all they hoped for, that other gaming group has long since dissolved into other games or just stopped playing altogether and there is no going back. Games Workshop games apparently get infinite re-tries, anybody else get a single shot at best and should consider themselves lucky to get that shot. That is my observation.

I started playing GW games mostly because I had no more interest in trying to recruit or maintain another gaming group. I just wanted to show up a FLGS and find out what night is their 40k night and play. I didn't want to have to lug two armies, setup and waste a couple hours mostly doing nothing trying to get people to play demo games. I also found that GW miniatures were a heck of lot easier to make me look like a better painter than I am. I also was actually looking for an accessible and ultimately shallow gaming experience as I knew I wouldn't have the same amount time/money/effort to break down some of the best ways to build an army and play them on the table.

Managing a Gaming Group Tangent



I started Age of Sigmar because of the Kill Team group I am in, and I have been wanting to play a platoon/army game and can't really make it to 40k night. I was also under the impression that AoS was slightly better designed than 40k. Maybe it is, but my first impression says it isn't. I am going to keep plugging away in this Escalation League for AoS I am in. Currently, I am far less impressed with AoS than I have ever been with 40k and I started at the tail end of 7th edition 40k. Maybe is was perfect storm of not knowing how to play, my first game, not really being a demo of the game, playing an A tier vs. an F tier a small point game. But I generally consider a game not worth pursuing if I could have done better by literally taking no action all game long like what happen in that game.

I am hopeful (see what I said about GW players) that the new S2D battletomb allows me to play my army like how I want to play it. I really don't think a core of Chaos Warriors and Chaos Knights is a crazy idea for a S2D army. But right now, I can't see in anyway how that army can compete with a similar Bonereaper army of Mortek Guards and Kavalos Deathriders which looking over their stats make them look like Chaos Warriors 2.0. What is getting to be worse is people offering up what seem to be canned answers to the Bonereaper's weakness like they aren't the same in a Chaos Warrior and Knight army but worst.

After the Escalation League ends, I don't know if I will bother with AoS anymore. It seems too much like 40k with the advantages of not having a bunch of stratagems and being more melee focused. Otherwise, it seems a rather shallow experience of what actually happens on the table compared to what goes in the army list. Still way too early for me to tell though.

Let us know your thoughts after your escalation league concludes. I feel the way you do, and that feeling never changed after four-plus years of plugging away at it.

That matches my experiences too with GW games. GW gets infinite passes; most people who branch into other games often do it only because they're frustrated with the current edition of Warhammer, and as soon as the next edition comes around they all come crawling back abandoning whatever game they clearly enjoyed playing in the meantime, often in spite of that game running circles around Warhammer as far as rules and balance. But no, as soon as the next shiny from GW comes everyone forgets how much they hated the game and goes back.

It's a very strange phenomenon, honestly. I don't get why there's this "battered spouse" syndrome (I hate to use that example, I really do, but it's accurate) with GW even when they find something else. I've seen a few games crumble as soon as a new Warhammer comes out, as though GW is suddenly going to change 30 years of crap. It's all smoke and mirrors from GW (8th edition 40k the most recent example) and yet people continue to fall for it.

So it goes back to the cycle: You can be reasonably certain people will be playing Warhammer (often applies to 40k since AOS was pretty divisive) and can't be certain that will happen for other games, even when you have a group playing it, so Warhammer remains the comfortable choice which also means GW never has to really change anything because they stay profitable doing the same stuff and people still return to them time after time.

As it happens... I think I am coming back to Age of Sigmar.

That narrative campaign system for Mawtribes in the latest White Dwarf went right up my flagpole and got saluted. In built storyline, lots of variation in enemies and Battleplans. I went straight out and got myself a Gutbusters force, and will be painting them up over Christmas.

Watch out for the battle reports next year

Wish I had gotten that WD. I don't have an interest in mawtribes but i like to see how GW feels you should do narrative campaigns, even if they often are pretty poorly thought out.

At the end of the day, AoS is a lot of fun to play when it's working. More fun than others I've tried. That wombo-combo/forge the narrative/crazy stuff that gets tea-bagged is often really fun when everyone has the same level of it. Something I feel games that focus on balance often miss out on. The reality is people go back to GW games despite the balance, and attributing it to some mass instance of abusive psychology is absurd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
Wish I had gotten that WD. I don't have an interest in mawtribes but i like to see how GW feels you should do narrative campaigns, even if they often are pretty poorly thought out.

I approach them as toolboxes I can pull pieces out of for use in my own content and get a lot of mileage that way.

So what's the reason then? Why do people inevitably go back to GW after seeing what things are like over the hill? The only thing i can think of is that it's that odd sense that you can do casual or competitive. Like when I played WM/H it felt bland, not because the game was bad (it wasn't) but because the way the rules were you couldn't really do anything but tournament-style games even if you tried. The tight rules and focus on precise maneuvers didn't fit playing in a laid back, fast and loose narrative style no matter how hard you tried.

On the other hand Warhammer has the opposite problem where the rules are pretty crap for competitive play but can be made to kinda sort maybe if you squint work well enough, but are also loose and malleable enough to play those crazy casual/narrative games and not feel like they don't fit the serious tone of the rules.

Wayniac wrote:
So what's the reason then? Why do people inevitably go back to GW after seeing what things are like over the hill? The only thing i can think of is that it's that odd sense that you can do casual or competitive. Like when I played WM/H it felt bland, not because the game was bad (it wasn't) but because the way the rules were you couldn't really do anything but tournament-style games even if you tried. The tight rules and focus on precise maneuvers didn't fit playing in a laid back, fast and loose narrative style no matter how hard you tried.

On the other hand Warhammer has the opposite problem where the rules are pretty crap for competitive play but can be made to kinda sort maybe if you squint work well enough, but are also loose and malleable enough to play those crazy casual/narrative games and not feel like they don't fit the serious tone of the rules.

Tight rules don't really affect me in that manner. What matters is the people who are playing it.

Everyone plays Warhammer and/or X-Wing here, but very few people play WMH. A lot is how they come in, too. I was lucky enough to get a few small games in on the one WMH night I could make it, and one of them mentioned that they didn't come prepared for a small game. On the Warhammer side, especially with 40K, all I have to do is show up with a big enough army, and I can find a game (which I don't have right now). X-Wing is only a little less difficult. Infinity, WMH, Legion all require advance notice if you show up on a "non-regular" night. Heck, we even have a local Battletech group that can make arrangements to get together, but arrangements still need to be made.

I think part of it is that the ruleset is loose, but also the buy-in factor. Getting rid of a good sized army is a challenge, so some are almost always available. Of course, part of the reason X-Wing took off was because of the lack of hobbying with it, and it has a pretty tight ruleset.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

What I can say is by-and-large, GW players are an incredibly hopeful lot. They will break out or start an army at the slightest hint that GW game isn't completely horrible. It seems an even split if they will just shelve their army and wait for the game to be 'balanced', 'good' or whatever they are looking for when that GW game turns out to inevitably not be. Another portion will continue just to play even if it looks like they aren't having a great deal of fun (sunk cost fallacy maybe). My experience has been, even if you do manage to get a group going outside of GW games, all it takes is the hope of an idea that this edition has turned it around this time and players will leave whatever game they are currently playing to go back. By the time they discover it isn't all they hoped for, that other gaming group has long since dissolved into other games or just stopped playing altogether and there is no going back. Games Workshop games apparently get infinite re-tries, anybody else get a single shot at best and should consider themselves lucky to get that shot. That is my observation.

This has been 100% my observation as well. GW's all but kicking it's customers between the legs with every purchase around 2014/2015 caused such a decent chunk of people to go elsewhere, it was arguably the healthiest time for wargaming as a whole. Plenty of decent Kickstarters, smaller companies/games getting an injection of newblood, enthusiasm and money to expand the game itself, a lot of diversity in what smaller, cheaper games you could dip your toe into and try something else.

Then GW practise a basic social media presence, throw some self-aware jokes around and the beaten spouses are crawling back to their abusive ex because he got out of rehab and said "I've changed, honey!" I'm not immune to it either unfortunately - barring Underworlds which I genuinely enjoy - as it's now my only option if I want to do any wargaming (again). It's only three years later with 8th as bloated as 7th, more hilarious price rises and as horrific balance as ever that people are looking in the mirror with bruised eyes and asking "Did they really though?" Of course there's now been enough newblood through GW's genuinely good PR campaigns and influences to replace them and bring in new generations of white knights. The abundance of social media shills desperately trying to get GW's attention for free stuff/previews/head pats doesn't help when they're shrieking about how Everything Is Awesome.

Cities of Sigmar at least gets me use out of my WHFB models and the Old World announcement makes me slightly less bitter about it... although I'd rather support Mantic via KOW, but that's not an option around here anymore.

Sunk Cost Fallacy. Hell of a drug.

Sunk Cost Fallacy. Hell of a drug.

You could say its the perfect drug.

I'm not convinced it's sunk cost fallacy. I mean, that likely factors in a bit but if those people went to other games and played them, sometimes for years, before going back there would be a sunk cost fallacy there as well.

No, it's something else that keeps the hope that "this time" will be different for Warhammer which other games don't have. I've seen too many people that were happily playing another game immediately stop and drop that game like a hot potato when a new edition of warhammer comes.

I think part of it is the story and setting.

GW has always been really strong with the setting and themes of their races and world. Even very meta-hungry chasers who don't read the lore can still give you a decent accounting of the broad background of most races and their ideals and style as a faction and the general setting of the games.

The fact that GW puts together codex/battletomes with stories, lore and background; that they have a whole wing making books for their game; audio books; games; artwork; media in general. That builds a story and people like stories; they like being part of stories and telling stories.


A lot of other games the lore might take up a few pages; sometimes its never shown anywhere but in a short paragraph or two on the game website. Other times it might be in depth but never actually anywhere but the designers head. They don't build a story into each model. With 40K each model has a story behind it that is more than purely its role on the tabletop.


You can tell the tale that slaaesh seeker riders are deamons who went deep into the gardens of Slaanesh to tame their wild and deadly mounts from the open plains. Seating a saddle of gold upon them to aid in entrapping and taming them to their cause; that their tongues lick brings lethargy and numbness to the body and soul and eventually death.

Everyone knows that "red makes it go fasta!"


This builds something that acts as a long lasting draw to the game and GW are masters at this. Even if their story writing might at times not be the best in the business; its a solid good standard and they keep to this. That's why we'll never see "codex without fluff" because the fluff is one of those big long term draws that works alongside the quality of the model and the rules and the other people at the game club.

Wayniac wrote:
So what's the reason then? Why do people inevitably go back to GW after seeing what things are like over the hill? The only thing i can think of is that it's that odd sense that you can do casual or competitive.

Because I'm a miniatures gamer who can and does enjoy multiple different games/systems/editions. I can even do this at the same time! - Get together with a couple of friends one evening & play some AoS/WHFB, & then get together with a different group of friends come sat/sun for something Historical (WWII & Age of Sale stuff usually).

With GW? In the past I've enjoyed various editions of both WHFB & 40k (some more than others), as well as some of the other side games to varying degrees - Blood Bowl, Epic, Necrcomunda, etc.
So yes, when GW releases a new edition of WHFB (& and now AoS) or 40k I'll give it a look.
Sometimes I like what I see & stick around. Sometimes I don't, turn, & head back over the hill. And sometimes at some point I decide I'm not having enough fun & step away until a new edition arrives.

 auticus wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Except the games you mentioned aren't wargames. D&D especially is nothing like a wargame. Frostgrave is the closest, but the analogous games would still be Necromunda, Kill Team, and Warcry.

I'd be happy to jump in on a KoW, Conquest, or whatever other wargame that offers better rules. But I can't play them. There's no day I can show up and get pick-up games, and if I join a schedules league it means I could end up driving an hour to meet with someone. I can't just play the game I have to jump through hoops to get to the point where models are being put on the table.

Thats the roughest spot for me recruiting conquest.

“Its a great game and awesome but i cant get pickup games when i want”

We have a monthly get together and a regular league starting in january. But i doubt we will get beyond 15 players until a year has passed and people see us still playing.

If you're lucky. I've said this many a time (well, my FLGS owner has...). "Gamers are the flakiest bunch of people I have ever met.". How many of those people who said they would definitely, honest, no really this time- play for deffos bailed at the last minute (only to spend that money they don't have on MTG and/or Domino's pizza... ) despite initially being all in on wanting to play?

Then another new game appears and the process begins anew.

 Grimtuff wrote:


If you're lucky. I've said this many a time (well, my FLGS owner has...). "Gamers are the flakiest bunch of people I have ever met.". How many of those people who said they would definitely, honest, no really this time- play for deffos bailed at the last minute (only to spend that money they don't have on MTG and/or Domino's pizza... ) despite initially being all in on wanting to play?

Then another new game appears and the process begins anew.

I feel targeted. I'm thoroughly excited for the new Group Narrative Campaign with our amazing 10 people wanting to participate, only to have 2-3 other people show up for game days ever. I just don't get why people agree to plans and bail last minute instead of being big enough to turn it down at the moment, or at least in advance... Anywho, that's my reason why I'm not currently playing AoS. Not for lack of trying, but lack of turn-out

Wayniac wrote:
I'm not convinced it's sunk cost fallacy. I mean, that likely factors in a bit but if those people went to other games and played them, sometimes for years, before going back there would be a sunk cost fallacy there as well.

No, it's something else that keeps the hope that "this time" will be different for Warhammer which other games don't have. I've seen too many people that were happily playing another game immediately stop and drop that game like a hot potato when a new edition of warhammer comes.

I don't think it's purely Sunk Cost Fallacy, but I do think there's a psychological element that's beyond pure money. There's manhours spent, there's enjoyment of the universe/lore (most of the writing is trash but the same people who say it can't help but still be drawn to the IP) and there's that "first crush" vibes of Warhammer being your first ever wargame, usually from a much younger age than when you start looking into others, that won't help.

I think mainly though it does come back to that old chestnut that 40k and now, to a lesser extent, AoS will always be 'safe'. You will always find 40k players no matter where you go, hell even on a lot of military bases. There will pretty much never be a time where you cannot invest money into 40k and risk that it's going to be gathering dust because everybody went off to another game. I think a lot of going back to 40k/GW stems from a kind of understandable fear that they're going to be left behind if they spend anymore money on whatever non-GW product they're playing? But I do think also part of it is honest curiosity in a new edition.

They grab the book - because what's £30 in the grand scheme? - play a few games, it's not AS bad as they remember it (being new and shiny) and then they get wrapped up in the excitement that SO MANY players are currently sharing. Compared to their current non-GW product where the only buzz will be among their little circle. It sucks, but this is my guess in part.

MongooseMatt wrote:
As it happens... I think I am coming back to Age of Sigmar.

That narrative campaign system for Mawtribes in the latest White Dwarf went right up my flagpole and got saluted. In built storyline, lots of variation in enemies and Battleplans. I went straight out and got myself a Gutbusters force, and will be painting them up over Christmas.

Watch out for the battle reports next year

Well that made my day. Your Realmgate Wars adventures were super entertaining.

I'm not playing AoS because I'm using my GW minis to play One Page Rules games, frankly. It's more fun than worrying about GW and their supposed game balance and chasing the meta. I like deep rules as much as anyone, but as a player since Rogue Trader 40k, eventually with most GW games there ends up being too many layers added from too many sources, and it's like owning a set of encyclopedias.

Sometimes less is more, especially when I value the minis and terrain more than wading through interconnecting rules. Both Grimdark Future and Age of Fantasy are perfectly fun, with a one page codex for any of the armies, and a shared set of core rules for both settings that also work for skirmish gaming, that can fit on less paper than AoS took up when it first came out. That's a huge blessing when games have to be fit in around adult life and kids.

No disrespect, but thats at least the second time you posted that same info. Do you get kickbacks for plugging One Page Rules or something?

Usually a sign that a thread has run its course when folks start to double back like that. Sure thats not the only one in a 40+ page thread.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also:

MongooseMatt wrote:
As it happens... I think I am coming back to Age of Sigmar.

That narrative campaign system for Mawtribes in the latest White Dwarf went right up my flagpole and got saluted. In built storyline, lots of variation in enemies and Battleplans. I went straight out and got myself a Gutbusters force, and will be painting them up over Christmas.

Watch out for the battle reports next year

Awwww, yeah!!!

Welcome back

One-Page-Rules is the prime example on how to write simple rules but keep tactical depth and balance

something GW never understood while changing from the old style of rules, were number of pages were seen as sign of quality (and there are still people out there believing what GW said, that only ruleset with hundreds of pages will provide tactical option) to the new style with the lowest number of pages possible

 nels1031 wrote:
No disrespect, but thats at least the second time you posted that same info. Do you get kickbacks for plugging One Page Rules or something?

Usually a sign that a thread has run its course when folks start to double back like that. Sure thats not the only one in a 40+ page thread.

Aw, crap. Whoops! Like you said, sometimes when threads start to meander people forget when/how they posted in them, me included.

I frequently repost stuff because I can't remember what I said before xD

That and in a 43 page conversation things get lost or forgotten or people join the conversation from the last page and have no idea you said that.

Plus it's a bit funny that if anything, I could be accused of being a GW shill rather than for One Page Rules, as for nearly 20 years my license plate has read "WH 40K".

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Plus it's a bit funny that if anything, I could be accused of being a GW shill rather than for One Page Rules, as for nearly 20 years my license plate has read "WH 40K".

Yikes!

The space marine looking guys are not interesting.

kenofyork wrote:
The space marine looking guys are not interesting.

There is at least one hand worth of fingers in other factions though. I won't comment if they are more or less interesting than Stormcast Enternals, but to condemn an entire game based on like 5% of the factions seems a tad bit dismissive overall. Doubly so with a single sentence and a vague personal opinion.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

kenofyork wrote:
The space marine looking guys are not interesting.

There is at least one hand worth of fingers in other factions though. I won't comment if they are more or less interesting than Stormcast Enternals, but to condemn an entire game based on like 5% of the factions seems a tad bit dismissive overall. Doubly so with a single sentence and a vague personal opinion.

Considering how favoured they seem I can understand it. It burns you out when a game pours love onto the Marines/Stormies and you get left behind.

I'd chime in with agreement as well. Stormcast get new units and books like space marines do, even though they only make up a fraction of the factions.

It can be exhausting if you are not a stormcast. Especially when you watch the faction you love not get anything for over four years.

Let's be honest; they aren't as bad as Space Marines when it comes to hogging releases. For starters they're confined to one measly battletome!

 auticus wrote:

It can be exhausting if you are not a stormcast. Especially when you watch the faction you love not get anything for over four years.

I don't think it's fair to say the AoS release schedule is slow at all...

Even with lots of of stormcast releases, in 4 years time since the AoS release, ALL major factions will have been updated. That's an absolute break-neck pace compared to the old WHFB days.

Hell, lots of other armies are even seeing a third (like BoK) or second iteration by now (Bonesplitters, Ironjawz, Sylvaneth, Flesh-eater courts). Armies being left to linger for too long because of "faux space marine complaints" is not a very valid argument in my book.

Honestly I think that even GW doesn't want to repeat the marketing quirk that is marines with stormcast. Sure they used them on the same design principles, butI don't think GW wants 10 Stormcast Chamber armies. I think they'd much rather a more even spread of sales through the range. I think that's why they've done big things like making Nighthaunt the other half of the pushfit starter set model range; why a lot of the BL books are not all stormcast.

I think that the days when it was "all stormcast" were are the very early days of AoS when it was a very different game and management approach.


Another element is that AoS has less niches than 40K. Even though 40K got rid of the old Force Organisation chart; it still has a lot of subdivisions of unit types within it; which in turn breeds more niches and thus more model requirements. AoS has far fewer - we've even got armies with a very tiny variety of models and they can still battle almost anything that comes their way pretty well. As a result Stormcast have even less room to fit in more options until GW creates more unit niches and specialisations.

I don't think it's fair to say the AoS release schedule is slow at all...

As a slaves to darkness player... I've watched something like four stormcast books come out while having to watch slaves of darkness get 0 books in four years. Kharadron Overlords are next up in the flaming pile of useless rules pit that have watched the same thing. Then there are the mediocre 2.0 books that can't keep up with the power books that have to wait who knows how long before they are able to be viable.

Oh sure, I'm not denying there haven't been many SCE releases... And if you play StD primarily, you literally are the worst of out of all AoS players in terms of having to wait for a tome (ignoring that mini Everchosen tome). The rules design for StD did allow them to be played in many allegiances though throught he mark system (although I do hate "rainbow chaos warriors as an army collector myself).

All I'm saying is that despite lot's of SCE releases, it's not like it's stopping other factions from being update rather rapidly (hell, getting a book in 4 years as a "GW veteran" is blisteringly fast compared to the olden days).

 Elmir wrote:

 auticus wrote:

It can be exhausting if you are not a stormcast. Especially when you watch the faction you love not get anything for over four years.

I don't think it's fair to say the AoS release schedule is slow at all...

Even with lots of of stormcast releases, in 4 years time since the AoS release, ALL major factions will have been updated. That's an absolute break-neck pace compared to the old WHFB days.

Hell, lots of other armies are even seeing a third (like BoK) or second iteration by now (Bonesplitters, Ironjawz, Sylvaneth, Flesh-eater courts). Armies being left to linger for too long because of "faux space marine complaints" is not a very valid argument in my book.

Some armies are just left to linger in general. It looks bad for a game if a conversation can go like "I used to play Fantasy, can I play in AoS with my army?" "No. You have the bare minimum in rules and awful power and that's for the few models left."

pm713 wrote:

 Elmir wrote:

 auticus wrote:

It can be exhausting if you are not a stormcast. Especially when you watch the faction you love not get anything for over four years.

I don't think it's fair to say the AoS release schedule is slow at all...

Even with lots of of stormcast releases, in 4 years time since the AoS release, ALL major factions will have been updated. That's an absolute break-neck pace compared to the old WHFB days.

Hell, lots of other armies are even seeing a third (like BoK) or second iteration by now (Bonesplitters, Ironjawz, Sylvaneth, Flesh-eater courts). Armies being left to linger for too long because of "faux space marine complaints" is not a very valid argument in my book.

Some armies are just left to linger in general. It looks bad for a game if a conversation can go like "I used to play Fantasy, can I play in AoS with my army?" "No. You have the bare minimum in rules and awful power and that's for the few models left."

Mostly true. While at this point I think we can leave the Bretonnians and Tomb Kings out of those connotations, people who were playing the Empire, High Elves, or a few of the others who have languished for this long without a 'Tome, have definitely been on the outlier.

The only thing I really disagree with is the "can't play" connotation. You can play with any of them, but just prepared to be flat out stomped unless the other player is willing to leave their 'Tome out of it (and even then...). "Playing" doesn't mean "win".

Elmir wrote:All I'm saying is that despite lot's of SCE releases, it's not like it's stopping other factions from being update rather rapidly (hell, getting a book in 4 years as a "GW veteran" is blisteringly fast compared to the olden days).

GW having been even more gak in the past doesn't make them not gak now.

pm713 wrote:Some armies are just left to linger in general. It looks bad for a game if a conversation can go like "I used to play Fantasy, can I play in AoS with my army?" "No. You have the bare minimum in rules and awful power and that's for the few models left."

It's a new game and GW are moving on, they just don't want to do say it, because they could still sell some old models.

 Charistoph wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Elmir wrote:

 auticus wrote:

It can be exhausting if you are not a stormcast. Especially when you watch the faction you love not get anything for over four years.

I don't think it's fair to say the AoS release schedule is slow at all...

Even with lots of of stormcast releases, in 4 years time since the AoS release, ALL major factions will have been updated. That's an absolute break-neck pace compared to the old WHFB days.

Hell, lots of other armies are even seeing a third (like BoK) or second iteration by now (Bonesplitters, Ironjawz, Sylvaneth, Flesh-eater courts). Armies being left to linger for too long because of "faux space marine complaints" is not a very valid argument in my book.

Some armies are just left to linger in general. It looks bad for a game if a conversation can go like "I used to play Fantasy, can I play in AoS with my army?" "No. You have the bare minimum in rules and awful power and that's for the few models left."

Mostly true. While at this point I think we can leave the Bretonnians and Tomb Kings out of those connotations, people who were playing the Empire, High Elves, or a few of the others who have languished for this long without a 'Tome, have definitely been on the outlier.

The only thing I really disagree with is the "can't play" connotation. You can play with any of them, but just prepared to be flat out stomped unless the other player is willing to leave their 'Tome out of it (and even then...). "Playing" doesn't mean "win".

Playing means that you have a reasonable chance to win most of the time. Not by playing this army you will certainly lose barring incompetence or extreme luck.

@DarkBlack. That's dumb. AoS is a sequel to Fantasy, you can't just ignore it.

That's dumb. AoS is a sequel to Fantasy, you can't just ignore it.

Tell that to the east ortodox church or old star wars fans. Or generaly followers or fans of anything that people liked and cherished, and which then was changed to be something drasticly different.

AoS is a sequel, that's correct, in the same sense that WW2 is sequel to WW1. You don't expect to bring a force of Mk IV tanks from 1918 to a D-Day landing game of Flames of War. The remaining "old" armies have now been fully updated, so the problem is resolved anyway. All that's left is for three oldest books (lizards, tzeench and KO) to be updated.

Speaking of release schedule, last 2 years AoS schedule was incredibly hectic when it came to updating armies, even if most only had a handful of new kits.

I'm not playing because I don't like the game.

I played 3rd ed WHFB and 7/8th editions. I have one army - high elves. Not shark-riding, whale jumping sea elves, not dark elves, not tree-hugging sylvaneth.

I had my 3rd ed army stolen back in the day, and started late 6th ed from scratch with HE after a decade and a half (at least) on the wagon. Then GW went and nuked the old world.

Fortunately for me, GW wasn't my entry point. I came in via WW2 and moderns back in the late 80s, moved to battletech, then across to 40k when I saw it, then WHFB. I knew there were other games apart from GW from the get-go, and not being part of a store-gaming clique, meant I didn't have to "play what's in the shop".

I loathe the current model aesthetic for AoS. just about all of it. My HE are my elves on the shelf and have been for a few years.

These days, I build the models I like, and play the odd other spaceship game, or SF miniatures game when I feel the need to. I have a core group of players who play the same games, and our gaming life is cool.

pm713 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
The only thing I really disagree with is the "can't play" connotation. You can play with any of them, but just prepared to be flat out stomped unless the other player is willing to leave their 'Tome out of it (and even then...). "Playing" doesn't mean "win".

Playing means that you have a reasonable chance to win most of the time. Not by playing this army you will certainly lose barring incompetence or extreme luck.

I reject this slang. Ask Merriam-Webster or Oxford for the definition of "play" and the term "win" is never used in the definitions.

 Charistoph wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
The only thing I really disagree with is the "can't play" connotation. You can play with any of them, but just prepared to be flat out stomped unless the other player is willing to leave their 'Tome out of it (and even then...). "Playing" doesn't mean "win".

Playing means that you have a reasonable chance to win most of the time. Not by playing this army you will certainly lose barring incompetence or extreme luck.

I reject this slang. Ask Merriam-Webster or Oxford for the definition of "play" and the term "win" is never used in the definitions.

Play - engage in activity for enjoyment and recreation rather than a serious or practical purpose.

Either way it fails. It's not fun to be neglected.

We're going to play a game of monopoly. I'm going to pick the dog pawn, because the dog pawn starts with $20,000 more than you and gets to take two turns in a row every time its his turn, because he's the dog pawn. Additionally if you own any property you have to pay a special dog tax to the player that is the dog every turn because the dog is awesome.

All the other pawns just function as normal. And I figured out that having those advantages means I want to always be the dog.

Sound like a good game to play?

How about we play a different game involving cards, but you have to use the deck of cards that has all the weak effects in it because the rules say someone has to play the weak deck and someone has to play the strong deck, because you dont play this game to try to win, you just play this game for fun and drink beer.

Think that game would fly off shelves?

Or is the expectation with a game that you and I sit down and we both have a reasonably good chance of being able to win it through good gameplay and better choices in-game as opposed to picking the (obviously)better pawn?

I suppose each person is different. But trying to go off of the dictionary definition of play to try and disqualify someone's desire to have a game decided on gameplay as opposed to picking the best pawn is stretching. Because for my money its not much fun or enjoyable to spend hundreds of dollars, hundreds of hours hobbying, to walk to a table and get crushed by virtue of liking the models that don't have the hot rules, nor wanting to have to buy/sell my armies and keep up with the meta to have an enjoyable game.

Auticus is a poster who I always enjoy reading content from, and respect the opinion of, but for fairness sake I do want to add that the inverse... an overly homogenized game... can be problematic for our hobby too.

I just wrote a review of Marvel: Crisis Protocol for Frontline that essentially had to damn it with faint praise for being sooo safe that the resulting game is soulless, and dull.

I have been playing huge amounts of AoS as of late, and I have to say, if we could excise the stupid-tier books, and if everything floated around Gitz-tier, it would be a genuinely fun system. Those mid-tier books played against one-another are like a pocket-dimension of what the whole game should aspire to be.

Definitely don't want an overly homogenized game.

But definitely don't want the game AOS has been for its lifetime where a subset of factions are clearly going to clean your clock if you aren't playing one of them. (and yes that extends back to whfb all the way to 2007 or so with the demon, dark elf, and vc army books when they were the beginning of the "trifecta" that always existed that ran people off)

If everything was around gitz tier or khorne tier then I'd agree the game would at least have its balance issues reigned in and be a lot more fun from a gameplay standpoint where you don't want to sit down and just get mule kicked in the face for liking the wrong faction.

The fan comp days of AOS showed that this could be done. Kings of War and Conquest have some armies that are harder and easier which is to be expected, but nothing like don't bother showing up if you like this faction levels that need addressed today here.

 auticus wrote:
Definitely don't want an overly homogenized game.

But definitely don't want the game AOS has been for its lifetime where a subset of factions are clearly going to clean your clock if you aren't playing one of them. (and yes that extends back to whfb all the way to 2007 or so with the demon, dark elf, and vc army books when they were the beginning of the "trifecta" that always existed that ran people off)

If everything was around gitz tier or khorne tier then I'd agree the game would at least have its balance issues reigned in and be a lot more fun from a gameplay standpoint where you don't want to sit down and just get mule kicked in the face for liking the wrong faction.

The fan comp days of AOS showed that this could be done. Kings of War and Conquest have some armies that are harder and easier which is to be expected, but nothing like don't bother showing up if you like this faction levels that need addressed today here.

Totally agree. Uphill battles because the enemy brought a stronger list/army are one thing. Sometimes I even appreciate the challenge. But what has brought me close to quitting AoS more than once is when I show up and either me or my opponent has no realistic means of victory.

pm713 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
The only thing I really disagree with is the "can't play" connotation. You can play with any of them, but just prepared to be flat out stomped unless the other player is willing to leave their 'Tome out of it (and even then...). "Playing" doesn't mean "win".

Playing means that you have a reasonable chance to win most of the time. Not by playing this army you will certainly lose barring incompetence or extreme luck.

I reject this slang. Ask Merriam-Webster or Oxford for the definition of "play" and the term "win" is never used in the definitions.

Play - engage in activity for enjoyment and recreation rather than a serious or practical purpose.

See? "Win" is not a requirement to play, unless you are the type to tip tables if you lose.

pm713 wrote:
Either way it fails. It's not fun to be neglected.

In that I am in agreement. But there is a difference between being ignored and still can put pieces on the table.

Win is not a requirement to play.

However in the real world talking about people not about words; its rare that one can enjoy the competitive/gaming side of an activity if a person continually loses. Especially if their loss is basically boiled down to "you can't actually win unless through insane luck or the opponent playing exceptionally badly".

Most people need a degree of wins in order to maintain the fun element. Interestingly continual winning can also hamper enthusiasm (esp if its very easy winning) after a while. Even more so if there's no out-of-game reward (eg getting paid to win)

I don't need to win all the time. I don't even mind losing more than I win. I just need to know that I'm not out of the game before I've unpacked my $1000 worth of models because you're a genius reincarnation of Napolean and Patton all wrapped into a sleek velvet gamer shell, and figured out three keeper of secrets summoning 2000 points and having 4000 points in a 2000 point game is awesome and I liked an army that wasn't in the power trifecta so I've already lost before that case of models is even opened.

You could always concede and then ask the Slaanesh player to use a different army composition or take a handicap if the result is that forgone a conclusion in your local area.

Or just not play the slaanesh army.

Hopefully half-year update (I think its coming in January) might start to chip away at the powerhouse that is Slaanesh.

You can't do those things in public events. Well... you can. But that ruins the point of having public gaming events in the first place if people are having to concede matches because they either bring their slaanesh/Flesh eater court/masters of the universe undead / whatever is currently busted or they are ok with getting crushed.

I can tell you from years of doing public events that asking players to not max power their lists results in hostile reactions. Some VERY hostile reactions. Some very dramatic reactions, that carry over into your regional facebook chat with people using all caps responses.

Which shouldn't happen if the company that made the game would stop letting things like that happen regularly.

I'm just using slaanesh as the example now since it is as of today the worst of the bunch. In the history of AOS with official points there has always been a slaanesh though, so slaanesh will get toned down and something will rise to take its place.

Thats why most recently i can point to our 2019 player group losing 14 players and having gained I believe 4, for a net loss of 10. Warcry is bigger now than AOS here, as is the Kings of War an hour south, and our Conquest group is currently at 16 which is now bigger than our AOS as well. Its not good for the health of the game other than if you are ok with burn and churn of your player base. So long as new players are jumping on and dumping cash on a new force I guess it doesn't matter if they leave a year later so long as their replacement is lined up.

Overread wrote:You could always concede and then ask the Slaanesh player to use a different army composition or take a handicap if the result is that forgone a conclusion in your local area.

Or just not play the slaanesh army.

Or play a game where you don't need to.

Hopefully half-year update (I think its coming in January) might start to chip away at the powerhouse that is Slaanesh.

There is always something or other that will fix things with GW coming soon, but things stay fethed after all these years and releases.
GW have no intention of fixing the game, the OP will just keep shifting.

Honestly nobody plays AoS, and 40k I barely play anymore but I'm soo deep in models I might as well get a game in now and again. Even though the rules just annoy me and I don't play for the next 6 months.
We had a large new 40K group once the ITC tournaments started they tried a few tournaments, and just quit altogether. A small AoS group started, they just quit before they even finished painting their models.
Locally it's just a dead game, and no point in buying a bunch of models for a dead game. Except for that steampunk dwarf with the top hat...I couldn't resist that.
In fact the only game that seems to be growing locally is Malifaux.

 auticus wrote:
You can't do those things in public events. Well... you can. But that ruins the point of having public gaming events in the first place if people are having to concede matches because they either bring their slaanesh/Flesh eater court/masters of the universe undead / whatever is currently busted or they are ok with getting crushed.

And not all play will be in public events. Realistically, if one is already planning on participating in public events, one will plan to build in to a competitive army, which makes any discussion on the other type of play moot.

However, a good portion of play for the game is in private games where that competitive aspect can be dropped. I know that's not always the case, of course, as my locals have a lot of people who spend their weekday play time preparing for the weekend public events, and that usually applies no matter which game it is, but it is short-sighted and foolish to ignore that some people are just happy to have someone to push models against no matter what the outcome is.

I'm not ignoring that people are happy to push models against each other no matter what the outcome is.

Thats obviously GWs target audience; them and the people that love the bad balance that tells them exactly what armies to look at taking without having to put much thought into it.

However this thread is "why are you not playing AOS" - and I'd say for a lot of the people not playing AOS its because we don't want to mash models together without caring about the outcome or walking into a game at the store and seeing our opponent drop 3 keeper of secrets onto the table knowing that its about to be a 4000 pt vs 2000 pt game.

The primary reason I have stopped playing AoS is that I haven't found a good balance between the amount of time invested into it and the joy I was getting out of it. When I was attending public events, mostly tournaments, I found 80%of my games to be very boring and uninspired. It just seems to me that AoS is geared towards the extremes of either playing totally casual or chasing the competitive scene. If you exist in the middle, you kind of either have to accept that is how it is, or move onto other things.

 auticus wrote:
I'm not ignoring that people are happy to push models against each other no matter what the outcome is.

Thats obviously GWs target audience; them and the people that love the bad balance that tells them exactly what armies to look at taking without having to put much thought into it.

However this thread is "why are you not playing AOS" - and I'd say for a lot of the people not playing AOS its because we don't want to mash models together without caring about the outcome or walking into a game at the store and seeing our opponent drop 3 keeper of secrets onto the table knowing that its about to be a 4000 pt vs 2000 pt game.

Yet that same imbalance is in 40K, and often worse, and not as much in WMH, yet 40K is still the king of the pile. Though, I think X-Wing still is running a close second.

If I get in to 40K or AoS, it is because I like the models and I want to bash them against another. Expecting a competitive game really doesn't come in to it at this point. It's not GW that's trying to make it competitive, after all, as opposed to the American games I just mentioned.

Karol wrote:

That's dumb. AoS is a sequel to Fantasy, you can't just ignore it.

Tell that to the east ortodox church or old star wars fans. Or generaly followers or fans of anything that people liked and cherished, and which then was changed to be something drasticly different.

A sequel to Fantasy? Not allowed to ignore it? Jesus Chrysler, the suits in Nottingham took Fantasy behind the shed, shot it, humiliated it in WD and replaced it with a shoddy IP called AoS.

 auticus wrote:


However this thread is "why are you not playing AOS" -

True, but then again the first post did sort of establish that it was about people on the fence not playing but interested and needing advice on how to get into it. Rather than a generalist complaining thread

I would say anyone listing any reason why they don't like AOS and are not playing it could be construed as complaining.

So the thread's name should have been "Why are you still not playing AOS?" ? Like in an add?

I got the matched play book and Khorne codex the other day, and since I already have a 40k Khorne daemon army, I'll probably be playing AoS pretty soon.

Anyone reading through this would probably not choose to play based on the usual negativity from the usual suspects, multiple times

And everyone who wants to play the game (and does not start for other reasons) should be aware of the negative experience

if you want buy a PC/console game for the gameplay and people are telling you to ignore the negative comments about it because the graphics are great and it can still be fun if you ignore the flaws

would you still buy it for the full price and also recommend it to others?

 Grimoir wrote:
Anyone reading through this would probably not choose to play based on the usual negativity from the usual suspects, multiple times

I would say if someone is considering AoS and bases their opinion solely on the thread titled "why aren't you playing AoS" they were just looking to find reasons not to. And with all due respect anyone who looks at internet discussion and does not acknowledge the negative-skew that exists across it is rather naive.

On the flip side, I think it would be highly dishonest to ban all negative talk about the game portion and then sell a product to a newb that they'd sink a few hundred dollars in to have to find out this stuff later after its too late.

If I'm going to invest hundreds into a game you can bet im looking for all the pros and cons and want to hear all the pros and cons, not just the everything is awesome sales pitch from the super fans.

I know when I'm looking for buy a game I read both positive and negative reviews.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I know when I'm looking for buy a game I read both positive and negative reviews.

Yeah but on Steam reviews I can see a persons "playtime". I actually tend to count "It gets boring/repetitive/its got some flaws" negative reviews as positive when I then see that they've a playtime well over 100 hours or such. Because if the standard cost of a game gave them hundreds of hours of playtime (heck even over 20 hours is a lot) then it likely IS a good game, they are just bored/overloaded with it. Ergo they've reached a natural point of oversaturation. With wargames its harder to see the hours of fun people have had in their opinions.

depends on how long you need to reach the "endgame" content

for game were you need to sink in a 100 hours to reach the final content and than see that it is not really fun is different to a game that is played through in 30 hours.

for AoS you don't need to spend the intro hours to learn the game but can buy an army and play narritive events/tournaments and if you are experienced in wargames 15 hours playtime or less can be enough to see if the game is yours or not.

if you count painting/building you still need a lot of time before you reach "endgame" but if you are only playing with painted models it can be compared to spending 100 hours with the game before you can tell that you like it or not

 kodos wrote:
And everyone who wants to play the game (and does not start for other reasons) should be aware of the negative experience

if you want buy a PC/console game for the gameplay and people are telling you to ignore the negative comments about it because the graphics are great and it can still be fun if you ignore the flaws

would you still buy it for the full price and also recommend it to others?

Many times. "Eurojank" is a thing in my industry, and I have wholeheartedly recommended games like Pathologic 2 or Deadly Premonition despite their "technically" being disasters.

Any product is the sum of all its parts, and perfection is often the enemy of good.

I don't play AoS, not because I don't want to, but because I can't:

-I am a painter primarily, and because I try to do as good of a job as I can, it tends to take me longer to paint an army than I can maintain enough interest in it to amass 2K points. It took me a year to do 1K pts of yellow Ironjawz (50 'Ardboyz FTW), and that was when I was working at it almost every day.

-I am a casual player, and I live in a small town in rural Missouri. The closest FLGS to me is an hour away. I don't want to dive into a tournament as a newb, as I do not like the atmosphere. And it is difficult to get people to reliably play casual games on a weekend when every Saturday is a tournament.

joewarhost wrote:
I don't play AoS, not because I don't want to, but because I can't:

-I am a painter primarily, and because I try to do as good of a job as I can, it tends to take me longer to paint an army than I can maintain enough interest in it to amass 2K points. It took me a year to do 1K pts of yellow Ironjawz (50 'Ardboyz FTW), and that was when I was working at it almost every day.

That sounds like an excuse. Just play 1k pt games.

joewarhost wrote:
-I am a casual player, and I live in a small town in rural Missouri. The closest FLGS to me is an hour away. I don't want to dive into a tournament as a newb, as I do not like the atmosphere. And it is difficult to get people to reliably play casual games on a weekend when every Saturday is a tournament.

Well if you're a casual gamer you must have someone to play with -otherwise you wouldn't be gamer.... So just play the occasional game 1k pt game.

ccs wrote:

joewarhost wrote:
-I am a casual player, and I live in a small town in rural Missouri. The closest FLGS to me is an hour away. I don't want to dive into a tournament as a newb, as I do not like the atmosphere. And it is difficult to get people to reliably play casual games on a weekend when every Saturday is a tournament.

Well if you're a casual gamer you must have someone to play with -otherwise you wouldn't be gamer.... So just play the occasional game 1k pt game.

As they said, it seems that everyone is the tournament-only type, for the most part. In such an environment, getting someone to entertain anything but whatever the tournament standard is can be a challenge, and even harder if there are few/no tables left to play on.

ccs wrote:

joewarhost wrote:
I don't play AoS, not because I don't want to, but because I can't:

-I am a painter primarily, and because I try to do as good of a job as I can, it tends to take me longer to paint an army than I can maintain enough interest in it to amass 2K points. It took me a year to do 1K pts of yellow Ironjawz (50 'Ardboyz FTW), and that was when I was working at it almost every day.

That sounds like an excuse. Just play 1k pt games.

joewarhost wrote:
-I am a casual player, and I live in a small town in rural Missouri. The closest FLGS to me is an hour away. I don't want to dive into a tournament as a newb, as I do not like the atmosphere. And it is difficult to get people to reliably play casual games on a weekend when every Saturday is a tournament.

Well if you're a casual gamer you must have someone to play with -otherwise you wouldn't be gamer.... So just play the occasional game 1k pt game.

You are completely ignoring his point, seriously.

I tried getting into a MTG group that was focused on a tournament every week - it didn't last long. Sadly such environments are great for those who are good (or at least good within the local meta); for those who aren't it can feel like the wrong attitude. Even if casual games I might lose just as many the fact that its not structured as a "tournament" makes a lot of difference. It's not even well conducted toward advancing your game because everyone is competing every week for all the matches so you're not getting that "downtime" outside to learn or improve etc.... Barring the small portion of the evening before the event starts.

Thats why games like AOS are going to be very hit or miss. If you have a casual group that doesn't want to curb stomp baby seals, I am sure it can be a blast.

If you are in an area that the majority are doing tournament style gaming, the game has to be tighter than what AOS offers.

I'd love to get into AoS by playing Skirmish or Hinterlands, but to get anyone in my area to play non-tournament standard games would be tantamount to getting them to play non-GW games. Pretty unlikely. Which is a bummer, as I love small skirmish games.

Maybe when Warcry gets the new warbands, and if anyone still plays it, I will get into that.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Which is a bummer, as I love small skirmish games.

Go outside of GW for the good ones, Malifaux is fantastic, Kings of War: Vanguard is done well (noticeably still in it's first edition though) and Frostgrave is good fun.

One of these days I need to do a sample try it Warcry. I was initially turned off by it being all-chaos. But if they are bringing in the other factions, that sounds pretty good

joewarhost wrote:
One of these days I need to do a sample try it Warcry. I was initially turned off by it being all-chaos. But if they are bringing in the other factions, that sounds pretty good

They've had non-Chaos factions in Warcry since the beginning.

 DarkBlack wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Which is a bummer, as I love small skirmish games.

Go outside of GW for the good ones, Malifaux is fantastic, Kings of War: Vanguard is done well (noticeably still in it's first edition though) and Frostgrave is good fun.

I feel like you didn't read the rest of the post you pulled that quote from.
1) Grimm WANTS to play small AoS skirmish games.
2) Getting other local players to do so is a nigh impossible task. What company makes the skirmish game isn't relevant.

ccs wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Which is a bummer, as I love small skirmish games.

Go outside of GW for the good ones, Malifaux is fantastic, Kings of War: Vanguard is done well (noticeably still in it's first edition though) and Frostgrave is good fun.

I feel like you didn't read the rest of the post you pulled that quote from.
1) Grimm WANTS to play small AoS skirmish games.
2) Getting other local players to do so is a nigh impossible task. What company makes the skirmish game isn't relevant.

I did, I just chose to promote games that I like and suggest moving away from GW (might require finding people outside that group though).
I am glad that I gave up on GW and have gotten much joy from the games that I suggested, so I'm trying to pass that on.

 DarkBlack wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Which is a bummer, as I love small skirmish games.

Go outside of GW for the good ones, Malifaux is fantastic, Kings of War: Vanguard is done well (noticeably still in it's first edition though) and Frostgrave is good fun.

Absolutely. But to play any non-GW games in my area, I have to own all the models for play and push for the game to be played. GW games dominate as usual, with the occassional Xwing.

I would love to get more games in with my Dracula's America stuff, or experience a good Song of Blades and Heroes campaign, or Gaslands, Star Wars Armada, etc. If Warcry can grow some with the new stuff coming out, maybe I'll give it a bite.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

joewarhost wrote:
One of these days I need to do a sample try it Warcry. I was initially turned off by it being all-chaos. But if they are bringing in the other factions, that sounds pretty good

They've had non-Chaos factions in Warcry since the beginning.

Well, kinda. Good luck getting many of the card packs to even field them.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Which is a bummer, as I love small skirmish games.

Go outside of GW for the good ones, Malifaux is fantastic, Kings of War: Vanguard is done well (noticeably still in it's first edition though) and Frostgrave is good fun.

Absolutely. But to play any non-GW games in my area, I have to own all the models for play and push for the game to be played. GW games dominate as usual, with the occassional Xwing.

I would love to get more games in with my Dracula's America stuff, or experience a good Song of Blades and Heroes campaign, or Gaslands, Star Wars Armada, etc. If Warcry can grow some with the new stuff coming out, maybe I'll give it a bite.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

joewarhost wrote:
One of these days I need to do a sample try it Warcry. I was initially turned off by it being all-chaos. But if they are bringing in the other factions, that sounds pretty good

They've had non-Chaos factions in Warcry since the beginning.

Well, kinda. Good luck getting many of the card packs to even field them.

They're all in the Tome of Champions book that just released.

 AegisGrimm wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

joewarhost wrote:
One of these days I need to do a sample try it Warcry. I was initially turned off by it being all-chaos. But if they are bringing in the other factions, that sounds pretty good

They've had non-Chaos factions in Warcry since the beginning.

Well, kinda. Good luck getting many of the card packs to even field them.

You mean the rules printed in the Tome of Champions?

 AegisGrimm wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Which is a bummer, as I love small skirmish games.

Go outside of GW for the good ones, Malifaux is fantastic, Kings of War: Vanguard is done well (noticeably still in it's first edition though) and Frostgrave is good fun.

Absolutely. But to play any non-GW games in my area, I have to own all the models for play and push for the game to be played. GW games dominate as usual, with the occassional Xwing.

I would love to get more games in with my Dracula's America stuff, or experience a good Song of Blades and Heroes campaign, or Gaslands, Star Wars Armada, etc. If Warcry can grow some with the new stuff coming out, maybe I'll give it a bite.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

joewarhost wrote:
One of these days I need to do a sample try it Warcry. I was initially turned off by it being all-chaos. But if they are bringing in the other factions, that sounds pretty good

They've had non-Chaos factions in Warcry since the beginning.

Well, kinda. Good luck getting many of the card packs to even field them.

Here: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=warcry+cards&crid=1E5SZ2JR5CXBE&sprefix=warcry+%2Caps%2C181&ref=nb_sb_ss_i_4_7

Sure, all the card packs are on Amazon. But I'm not paying 25 dollars for the Ironjaws pack or Stormcast cards so I can play them in local games of Warcry, when GW could still be stocking them for 8 dollars as a supplement. Warcry has the exact same crap card availability issues as Necromunda, where you have to quickly snap them up at release as they are only available in a limited edition format.

I have not had a chance to look at a Tome of Champions yet. Is all the info from the card packs available there? As a newbie to Warcry, some of GW's info is unclear to me (I have only ever played Skirmish or Hinterlands)

Yeah it's all the cards copied into the book. Frankly i think it's better than the cards. I'd rather have it all in one place than having multiple cards and needing to store those as well.

Its all the cards for everything up to now. The new profiles are NOT in the book and you currently need the new cards not yet released to use them

I did a demo game. I like the rule set. I just have no attachment to anything yet. WHFB was very simple theming wise and easy to connect with using evocative set pieces (big blocks of cavalry charging, spearmen, wizard on dragon, etc.) I started in 5th probably at the growth spurt where Brets and lizardmen were just new and exciting with great sculpts. I left for 40k exclusively before 7th and really haven't been back.

AoS models are more "unique" but meh? It's like WM/Hordes. Sure could I see myself collecting/painting some of the cool models? Absolutely. Do I feel a connection to anything viscerally? Not yet. IDK is probably the closest to "cool enough" so far but I haven't been pushed off the edge yet, e.g. like Eidolon is an amazing model but $110 for dust collector that isn't even taken in most lists for an army I'm only vaguely interested in for a game in great flux and potential that I don't play yet? Meh. Fyreslayers are just an army of what used to be one unit to me so I kind of resent that in a weird way?
Knights/elves/etc. (Good guys archetype from LOTR) just don't exist anymore, I know IP and mythic realms, blah blah, but I just look at something like KO and say "those airships are cool looking" but I don't care at all about them narratively. It's weird but old WHFB brets might be super generic knights, but dammit they were my knights. AoS army is crazy unique, but they don't speak to me.

Hysh elves or whatever comes in 2020 has the potential to do it. I feel like they're creeping towards me, but AoS is so unique and focused rather than generic factions with expansive models and 1-2 unique units that I think it's harder to connect. Hard to explain, best I can come up with is hyper focused small cohesive factions make it harder to find inroads. Like if you love ogres riding mammoths, troll slayers alone, steampunk dwarf ship, man they got your number. But they haven't called mine yet. I'm boring high fantasy guy though I guess.