Kilkrazy wrote:
I am not comparing AoS with WHFB, a game I despised. I am comparing it with all wargames.

AoS may well have a surprising amount of tactical depth but it will have less than a game that includes rules for C&C, morale, weather, supply, training, hidden movement, and so on, that add more depth to the game by providing mechanisms to facilitate tactics that depend on these additional factors.

You aren't finding what you want with age of sigmar in regards to tactics because you want a WAR game, whereas AoS is a BATTLE game. If you want that level of tactics for age of sigmar, you will want to do a campaign wherein your battles have direct causality to the next game. Weather rules can be decided on the fly, and the difference in training can be shown by limiting certain options in your army based on fluff. (civilian militia being upgraded to men at arms after surviving 2 battles, a unit of silver helms getting to use dragon princes of caledor statlines after eliminating a certain number of units without themselves being killed, etc.)

And yes, there aren't rules in the 4page book for ongoing campaigns. That has never stopped someone from playing those sort of things before in any other gaming system.

I just dont see how AoS is considered even complete, there are so many holes and confused nonsense in its 4 pages to make the game virtually unplayable. I have heard people enjoying it, so far none of them are playing it as written, they always seem to have had to add something to the game. GW can and should have done better, they half arse tossed out a incomplete pdf, spit shined these "Warscrolls" and have GW apologists believing they made solid gold out of stripping down to barely legible "rules". I was very eager to see AoS come out and was looking forward to it. but what they did was make trash. They had a great thing with warhammer and its setting, but are beating the hell out of that poor dead horse. They should have let warhammer die with some dignity and came up with something new. Sigmar and his sigmarines are uninspired drivel at best. I liked the age of legends books about him enough, but he has ascended to "Drizzt" level crap. not at all the most interesting of their characters. GW let past success get to them and they lost the creativity that made them so great. Overall AoS is just mediocre. but it could have been THE revolution in gaming, maybe it will be in the future but not with this model. GW deserves the wallet punches they get from this. I live in a major metro area and we have 1 gw, it is the only place AoS gets played, barely.

Been playing it rules as written, no issues. What holes are you referring to?

shooting, movement, melee, pretty much the complete lack of any real clarification. adding the most obnoxious part, charging vs just walking up and hitting them, the charge phase seems almost just a tacked on thing. especially the whole if you cant get within 1/2 an inch the charge fails even though melee is within 3 inches.

thekingofkings wrote:
shooting, movement, melee, pretty much the complete lack of any real clarification. adding the most obnoxious part, charging vs just walking up and hitting them, the charge phase seems almost just a tacked on thing. especially the whole if you cant get within 1/2 an inch the charge fails even though melee is within 3 inches.

You can't just "walk up and hit somebody" since you can't move within 3" of a unit without charging. Charging works just like any other GW game, what's the problem exactly?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I am not comparing AoS with WHFB, a game I despised. I am comparing it with all wargames.

AoS may well have a surprising amount of tactical depth but it will have less than a game that includes rules for C&C, morale, weather, supply, training, hidden movement, and so on, that add more depth to the game by providing mechanisms to facilitate tactics that depend on these additional factors.

As an AoS "hater" I actually find I can't particularly agree with that view. I find all those things you've listed very desirable in a game (and FYI you should consider looking at the Darklands rules if you haevn't), but not having those things doesn't make a game more or less tactical, more or less realistic perhaps. For me, I see the way AoS works as a TTWG-equivalent of something like Magic (or, ironically, given Kirby's drivel in the Chariman's ramble, Pokémon) where you're looking to stack combos and efficiencies. It's just different tactically -- it might be that when you stacked everything up it is more or less tactical than other games, but the mere existence of such things does not an argument make.

Conceptually I don't have an issue with that, but there's too many other problems (summoning, lack of points, measure-to-model, shooting into combat - for starters) that break the deal.

Now I have to go shower for the rest of the day as being positive about AoS makes me feel dirty

 Mymearan wrote:

thekingofkings wrote:
shooting, movement, melee, pretty much the complete lack of any real clarification. adding the most obnoxious part, charging vs just walking up and hitting them, the charge phase seems almost just a tacked on thing. especially the whole if you cant get within 1/2 an inch the charge fails even though melee is within 3 inches.

You can't just "walk up and hit somebody" since you can't move within 3" of a unit without charging. Charging works just like any other GW game, what's the problem exactly?

That GW's charge system is poorly designed because of the randomness involved. Fantasy had a similar problem which was a large part of the mass exodus when 8th landed from the old timers I've spoken to, but at least you added your movement to make it a little more reliable. As well charging being the first thing you did in a turn required you to plan ahead instead of moving then charging like AoS/40k.

Significantly less tactical depth in that alone compared even to GWs older games.

 jonolikespie wrote:

That GW's charge system is poorly designed because of the randomness involved. Fantasy had a similar problem which was a large part of the mass exodus when 8th landed from the old timers I've spoken to, but at least you added your movement to make it a little more reliable. As well charging being the first thing you did in a turn required you to plan ahead instead of moving then charging like AoS/40k.

The charge in AoS, in terms of how much you move is not that different. On a successful charge you move M (because you moved in the movement phase) + 2d6 and on a failed - only M. In 8th on a successful charge you again move M+2d6 and lets say 4"(the higher of the 2d6) on a failed. The other differences are there, though...

quiestdeus wrote:

jonolikespie wrote:In Lord of the Rings you'd line your sword and shield men up then park your spearmen behind them where they were relatively safe with their lower armour and your enemy unable to engage them in melee (it was all base to base). Your spearmen then got the advantage of adding supporting attacks to someone they were in base to base contact with.

Very basic unit formation yes, but it's pretty realistic and isn't "nonsensical rules shenanigans" but rather an actual intentional part of the rules.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I have done the spears behind swords technique. Sword masters of loeth in front, high elf spearmen behind. With a single line of swordsmen, two lines of spearmen, the spears can all reach because their bases are less than an inch accross. My opponent has the choice of hitting the swordmasters, who do more damage individually but are harder to kill, or the spearmen who are gaining bonuses for being twenty strong but still not as crippling as the swordsmen.

With high elf banners giving bonuses for other banner carrying units within 8" it really helps the army to combing units into groups that way.

Can anyone in the "AoS is not tactically deep" crowd respond to this for me? I'm genuinely curious where the bar is at, as to someone trying to catch up a bit on this thread, it seems to have been met.

If you define tactics as having unit formations and placement meaning something, this is one very clear example of AoS having tactical decisions (and by no means the only one, I do similar things with Eternal Guard screens for Dryads). Age of Sigmar is also the first game I have played were you can actually Calvary charge in waves. The ability to retreat with one unit of cavalry while charging (to cover them) with another is phenomenal, and something you could never do in WHFB. Being able to actually employ hit and run tactics seems like it should also refute AoS is not tactically deep hypothesis, no?

Obviously this is the internet and I have little expectation of actually changing anyone's mind, but for people who are reading and not participating I'd like them to be able to make an informed judgement.

Noone said AoS doesn't have tactical decisions, or that the "formations" and placement are meaningless. That's actualy quite impossible when you have unit stats and movement ranges. Like reach of weapons, it obviously will crudely simulate some interactions and can be played around, it's just nothing exceptional or particularly challenging and finding a tactical or realistic element and claiming it proves the "AoS is shallow" crowd wrong is strawman. I for example was mainly reffering to claims that gaming the pile in is oh so tactical and more realistic than whfb, which is rubbish.

Yes I agree hit and run is great, or rather would be if it wasn't AoS. The implementation is bad, there's no penalty for disengaging and it's a no brainer. Also it's still directionless blobs we're talking about, the unit you disengaged from may charge something else and not worry about having a cavalry unit on it's back. It's all too simple to matter too much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Baragash wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I am not comparing AoS with WHFB, a game I despised. I am comparing it with all wargames.

AoS may well have a surprising amount of tactical depth but it will have less than a game that includes rules for C&C, morale, weather, supply, training, hidden movement, and so on, that add more depth to the game by providing mechanisms to facilitate tactics that depend on these additional factors.

As an AoS "hater" I actually find I can't particularly agree with that view. I find all those things you've listed very desirable in a game (and FYI you should consider looking at the Darklands rules if you haevn't), but not having those things doesn't make a game more or less tactical, more or less realistic perhaps. For me, I see the way AoS works as a TTWG-equivalent of something like Magic (or, ironically, given Kirby's drivel in the Chariman's ramble, Pokémon) where you're looking to stack combos and efficiencies. It's just different tactically -- it might be that when you stacked everything up it is more or less tactical than other games, but the mere existence of such things does not an argument make.

Conceptually I don't have an issue with that, but there's too many other problems (summoning, lack of points, measure-to-model, shooting into combat - for starters) that break the deal.

Now I have to go shower for the rest of the day as being positive about AoS makes me feel dirty

Meaningful movement phase makes a game times more tactical than combos especialy if the movement is hidden. It's finding combos that might be trickier, executing is banal actualy in a game like AoS, how many combo variables will there be after you deploy. And what's the point of whole blobs of miniatures if you're going to make it combo based on units level lol. Primary school level math I guess.

The other factors mentioned in mr.Kilkrazy post also stack up to give you multiple options in the end and more to take into account when predicting enemy movement, not to mention it's not exclusive with "combos" as units still can have abilities.

 CoreCommander wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

That GW's charge system is poorly designed because of the randomness involved. Fantasy had a similar problem which was a large part of the mass exodus when 8th landed from the old timers I've spoken to, but at least you added your movement to make it a little more reliable. As well charging being the first thing you did in a turn required you to plan ahead instead of moving then charging like AoS/40k.

The charge in AoS, in terms of how much you move is not that different. On a successful charge you move M (because you moved in the movement phase) + 2d6 and on a failed - only M. In 8th on a successful charge you again move M+2d6 and lets say 4"(the higher of the 2d6) on a failed. The other differences are there, though...

Alright, I'll pay that M+2d6 in one phase is little different from M in one, 2d6 in another.

However I stand by charging as the first thing you do is much more tactical than charging after the movement phase. It allows you to deliberately move your models away from your opponent's charge arc, or out of range. You can also screen your units better as your opponent can't shoot your models out before charging.
Hell, even just charging in the movement phase still means you have to have a lane to reach your opponent through, moving and charging separately allows you to move around an obstruction then charge after that.

Having a 360 degree charge arc is less tactical too, most other games require you to at least be facing your opponent when you activate your model if you want to charge.

From what I understand of the rules there is little actual benefit in charging too. Obviously things like cavalry will get bonuses but that is on a unit by unit basis. I can't see any standard 'you get to attack first', 'you get an extra attack' or anything like that in the rules. Please correct me if I am wrong on this but it looks like charging is simply the way to get into combat instead of being rewarded for making the charge with some kind of buff or benefit.

Equally there is no penalty for charging. You don't have to spend a command point, or take a morale test that you might fail, and there is no defensive fire or counter-charge.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Equally there is no penalty for charging. You don't have to spend a command point, or take a morale test that you might fail, and there is no defensive fire or counter-charge.

I'm trying to think of games that have this kind of stuff..
Fantasy had morale tests when charging terrifying iirc.
They also had the stand and shoot reaction. Neither played a huge deal. The fleeing reaction saw more use on the tables I played on, with the risk vs reward of causing your opponent to fail the charge vs losing your unit (which was cool when it was just chaff screening your larger units).

Infinity also has reaction fire which can be negated by approaching from outside their fire arc, smoke grenades, that kind of thing.

All of which felt much more tactical.

thekingofkings wrote:
I just dont see how AoS is considered even complete, there are so many holes and confused nonsense in its 4 pages to make the game virtually unplayable.

And yet people are playing it. Maybe something else is going on?

MongooseMatt wrote:

thekingofkings wrote:
I just dont see how AoS is considered even complete, there are so many holes and confused nonsense in its 4 pages to make the game virtually unplayable.

And yet people are playing it. Maybe something else is going on?

Nothing is universally hated.

I think the "something else going on" is simply the GW logo. Without it this game would have been laughed at and then ditched by whatever company lazy enough to try it.

 Swastakowey wrote:

MongooseMatt wrote:

thekingofkings wrote:
I just dont see how AoS is considered even complete, there are so many holes and confused nonsense in its 4 pages to make the game virtually unplayable.

And yet people are playing it. Maybe something else is going on?

Nothing is universally hated.

I think the "something else going on" is simply the GW logo. Without it this game would have been laughed at and then ditched by whatever company lazy enough to try it.

Aye.

Where this not a GW game no one would give it a second thought.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Where this not a GW game no one would give it a second thought.

Are you completely satisfied with that explanation?

I would have. Large scale skirmish is literally my favorite style of wargame, and I had backed three different kickstarters looking for a similar alternative before this came out.

Also, why is spending a moment to search out the enemy before charging the less tactical option?

With charge bonuses, some units benefit form a charge (cavalry, big animals, berserker types, etc.) And others gain bonuses from not being the ones who charged (most spearmen, dwarves infantry, anyone in terrain, empire troops, etc.) So all of these thing need to be taken into account when making tactical decisions, their position relative to heroes and other threatening units.

As for no negatives for retreat, you can only do it if you can get totally away from your opponents 3" control zone, and don't get to make any attacks that turn. Meaning if you don't have another unit tying the unit you just escaped from up, you are wasting your time retreating. So if you want your elven archers to fire double shots with +1 to wound next turn you had better have support for them nearby to hold down the target.

Well the problem is, AoS doesn't do large skirmish well and it doesn't do small skirmish well either. I have no problems with a gaming being bad in either size. Warmahordes scales bad over 50pts for example. 100pts is a horrible to play. Old WFB was horrible to play at lower points, and ok when big armies were used. AoS seems to be bad for both. To make it work one needs to do some strange scenario narrative play thing with terrain that doesn't fit any other game, with an hour or two before every game to agree on every rule and house ruled being used. In fact the more house rules a system requires to work, the worse for new players who want to start. Old players will know that FW is not acceptable or that the store uses this or that comp, a new player may turn up with a chaos dwarf army and get realy rude reality check.

MongooseMatt wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

Where this not a GW game no one would give it a second thought.

Are you completely satisfied with that explanation?

Yes actually. I stand by that as a reason for why 40k is still popular too as a matter of fact. It is probably the easiest game to actually find an opponent for in most parts of the world (not here, but once upon a time it was).

It doesn't matter how good a ruleset is, if you can't find an opponent for it it's worthless. Alternatively it doesn't matter how bad a ruleset it, if you can be guaranteed a game every time you are looking for one you'll make it work.

Also there is the whole 'GW hobby' angle where GW have systematically isolated themselves and their fans from the wider industry in an apparent attempt to make their customers believe that there are no other games on the market and that GW invented miniature gaming.

 jonolikespie wrote:

MongooseMatt wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

Where this not a GW game no one would give it a second thought.

Are you completely satisfied with that explanation?

Yes actually.

See, this is the problem.

Much of what you have just said is absolutely correct, no argument.

However, I would humbly venture that it is possible that it might be that you have not considered whether there is anything beyond this. This part of the debate started, not with you Good Sir, but with someone else saying they could not see how they considered AoS to be complete (holes, confused nonsense, etc). On the other hand, it is also apparent that others have taken to AoS like ducks to water and are not finding holes and nonsense (caveat: beyond what might be reasonably expected from any new game, and I would opine a good deal less, but I digress).

The way I see it (yes, I know ), to anyone who has been brought up on Warhammer and related games (which includes the likes of Warmachine, Kings of War and all the rest - they all have common roots), AoS is a _massive_ shift in concept. The switch from points-led games to narrative-based is a fundamental change, a real system shock.

It is not for everyone, though I would say everyone should probably try it. However, the idea that you _don't_ go into a game thinking 'I am going to win and this is how I am going to do it' is, in part, what's pulling people into Age of Sigmar.

For them, the game is complete (we always want more, natch) and is not nonsense.


Not saying you are wrong Just pointing out this is why some people do not have a problem with the game, and asking you to see things from their point of view.

MongooseMatt wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

MongooseMatt wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

Where this not a GW game no one would give it a second thought.

Are you completely satisfied with that explanation?

Yes actually.

See, this is the problem.

Much of what you have just said is absolutely correct, no argument.

However, I would humbly venture that it is possible that it might be that you have not considered whether there is anything beyond this. This part of the debate started, not with you Good Sir, but with someone else saying they could not see how they considered AoS to be complete (holes, confused nonsense, etc). On the other hand, it is also apparent that others have taken to AoS like ducks to water and are not finding holes and nonsense (caveat: beyond what might be reasonably expected from any new game, and I would opine a good deal less, but I digress).

The way I see it (yes, I know ), to anyone who has been brought up on Warhammer and related games (which includes the likes of Warmachine, Kings of War and all the rest - they all have common roots), AoS is a _massive_ shift in concept. The switch from points-led games to narrative-based is a fundamental change, a real system shock.

It is not for everyone, though I would say everyone should probably try it. However, the idea that you _don't_ go into a game thinking 'I am going to win and this is how I am going to do it' is, in part, what's pulling people into Age of Sigmar.

For them, the game is complete (we always want more, natch) and is not nonsense.


Not saying you are wrong Just pointing out this is why some people do not have a problem with the game, and asking you to see things from their point of view.

Well said, exalted.

MongooseMatt wrote:

It is not for everyone, though I would say everyone should probably try it. However, the idea that you _don't_ go into a game thinking 'I am going to win and this is how I am going to do it' is, in part, what's pulling people into Age of Sigmar.

I agree with (and love) everything you said MMatt, and will even go one step further... Mike Brandt (Organizer of NOVA, one of, if not the, largest WarGamingCon on the east coast) correctly identified Age of Sigmar as a "tournament organizer's wet dream." For those of us with a bit more slant towards competition, we have unparalleled freedom to draft up missions and composition packs that result in fair, balanced, competitive play that scratches our community's itch. We have enough of a backbone to work from to develop missions, and the sheer scope and uniqueness of the FREE warscrolls provides players plenty of variety to approach our missions...

It is, frankly, glorious!

quiestdeus wrote:

MongooseMatt wrote:

It is not for everyone, though I would say everyone should probably try it. However, the idea that you _don't_ go into a game thinking 'I am going to win and this is how I am going to do it' is, in part, what's pulling people into Age of Sigmar.

I agree with (and love) everything you said MMatt, and will even go one step further... Mike Brandt (Organizer of NOVA, one of, if not the, largest WarGamingCon on the east coast) correctly identified Age of Sigmar as a "tournament organizer's wet dream." For those of us with a bit more slant towards competition, we have unparalleled freedom to draft up missions and composition packs that result in fair, balanced, competitive play that scratches our community's itch. We have enough of a backbone to work from to develop missions, and the sheer scope and uniqueness of the FREE warscrolls provides players plenty of variety to approach our missions...

It is, frankly, glorious!

Very interesting, I've had the same thought actually. Lack of points could prove to be a blessing in disguise.

quiestdeus wrote:

MongooseMatt wrote:

It is not for everyone, though I would say everyone should probably try it. However, the idea that you _don't_ go into a game thinking 'I am going to win and this is how I am going to do it' is, in part, what's pulling people into Age of Sigmar.

I agree with (and love) everything you said MMatt, and will even go one step further... Mike Brandt (Organizer of NOVA, one of, if not the, largest WarGamingCon on the east coast) correctly identified Age of Sigmar as a "tournament organizer's wet dream." For those of us with a bit more slant towards competition, we have unparalleled freedom to draft up missions and composition packs that result in fair, balanced, competitive play that scratches our community's itch. We have enough of a backbone to work from to develop missions, and the sheer scope and uniqueness of the FREE warscrolls provides players plenty of variety to approach our missions...

It is, frankly, glorious!

It's great that NOVA organisers take time to fix the game and make it worthwhile but it's not a sign of a good game but a sign of a great community and GW is lucky to have one. The base ruleset is bad still and GW could have published a simple, open one but much better imo. Anyway I always liked NOVA aproach to terrain in 40k and would surely attend if it wasn't a bit complicated to get across the ocean on a vodka fueled bear but am not sure how I feel about tourneys embracing AoS tbh. It just helps GW slip with their bs, again.

On the other hand I used to love their plastics and although sigmarines shaked that a lot, it might be better that there are some GW fantasy models even cartoonish and videogamey than no fantasy at all, there's still a chance that I will get good daemons or sth to convert. I don't know really, can't even root for it to fail in peace ffs.

Also it's still NOVA format, I doubt it will be embraced everywhere and most places will still be left with default rules and some basic comp ie wounds.

I don't think the core ruleset is bad. I mean it covers the absolutely key bases -- movement, combat, magic -- and has actually only a few areas of ambiguity. (The less GW write for a game the fewer ambiguous points they can create.)

I just don't think it's very good. I think GW could have done a lot more in the same space by reducing the complication in combat and devoting the space to C&C, for example. A sadly missed opportunity for the world's largest wargame company with a design staff of 125 people working for supposedly two or three years to create the new system.

I don't think anyone has said that 125 people were working on the system, more likely it was a small project group doing most of the development.

quiestdeus wrote:

MongooseMatt wrote:

It is not for everyone, though I would say everyone should probably try it. However, the idea that you _don't_ go into a game thinking 'I am going to win and this is how I am going to do it' is, in part, what's pulling people into Age of Sigmar.

I agree with (and love) everything you said MMatt, and will even go one step further... Mike Brandt (Organizer of NOVA, one of, if not the, largest WarGamingCon on the east coast) correctly identified Age of Sigmar as a "tournament organizer's wet dream." For those of us with a bit more slant towards competition, we have unparalleled freedom to draft up missions and composition packs that result in fair, balanced, competitive play that scratches our community's itch. We have enough of a backbone to work from to develop missions, and the sheer scope and uniqueness of the FREE warscrolls provides players plenty of variety to approach our missions...

It is, frankly, glorious!

I disagree in it being a to's 'wet dream'.

I won't call it 'fixing', but the amount of work that is required to turn a 4 page rules set into a pack suitable for large scale and organised events is quite significant- op mentioned 22 pages of extra rules on top? Thsts a to being requires to add five times the workload of the parent company. To's should just be able to get on with running the event, they shouldn't have to design it all too. Having to essentially write up a governing set of rules, governing and universal missions, a scoring system, composition packs that are also fair, balanced and competitive and appealing to the community is a huge undertaking. Especially when this is needed to get everyone on board. Which won't always happen. there is also the problem of every to writing a different set of rules. Potential chaos. And requirement of workload certainly not a 'wet dream'. When the alternative is so much easier - a standard, defined and ready to go 'official' pack thst works across the world.There is a reason that privateer press' organised play and steamroller rules format is so successful and universally regarded within the WMH community.

The big issue for me is there is no 'governing body' or official 'defined' rules sets and tournament packs. As in sport, This is crucial in organised ttg play. There is a big potential for Everything ending up being variations of variations of a dozen different tournament formats. Because everyone is going to want something different. With no central organisation, I feel that there is big potential for fracturing what is already a very niche hobby into ever smaller circles that are not self sustaining for 'organised play' and general play, as well as breeding in intra-aos squabbling between adherents of different versions of aos what could essentially amount to different games, when everyone should be on the same page, pushing the same direction and playing the same game. This is a new game. You want it to grow. Not fracture into a thousand sub groups from the word go.

I agree with you though, because I think unparalleled freedom is great, but it requires the right mindset, people , huge effort and it requires the right conditions. I would also argue it has its limitations. It's not always the go-to choice. For me, tournaments are one of those areas thst offer massive hurdles.

MongooseMatt wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

MongooseMatt wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

Where this not a GW game no one would give it a second thought.

Are you completely satisfied with that explanation?

Yes actually.

See, this is the problem.

Much of what you have just said is absolutely correct, no argument.

However, I would humbly venture that it is possible that it might be that you have not considered whether there is anything beyond this. This part of the debate started, not with you Good Sir, but with someone else saying they could not see how they considered AoS to be complete (holes, confused nonsense, etc). On the other hand, it is also apparent that others have taken to AoS like ducks to water and are not finding holes and nonsense (caveat: beyond what might be reasonably expected from any new game, and I would opine a good deal less, but I digress).

The way I see it (yes, I know ), to anyone who has been brought up on Warhammer and related games (which includes the likes of Warmachine, Kings of War and all the rest - they all have common roots), AoS is a _massive_ shift in concept. The switch from points-led games to narrative-based is a fundamental change, a real system shock.

It is not for everyone, though I would say everyone should probably try it. However, the idea that you _don't_ go into a game thinking 'I am going to win and this is how I am going to do it' is, in part, what's pulling people into Age of Sigmar.

For them, the game is complete (we always want more, natch) and is not nonsense.


Not saying you are wrong Just pointing out this is why some people do not have a problem with the game, and asking you to see things from their point of view.

So in other words "because it has a GW logo on it".

Even you simply just said that.

Anyone who plays AOS should play a game that is actually scenario based. I bet once you try AOS again you will make many changes if what you really enjoy is scenario based games.

AOS is a mission based game. You get given a mission, you select your forces, then you slaughter the enemy until victory. This is not a scenario based game, this is a gamey game. This is warhammer 40k without points. This is like many FPS games with their missions and army set up. This is not a scenario game people.

The ONLY reason this game is played is because of a GW logo. No other game would have traction (as it would have been laughed at) with these rules.









IM still waiting for a batrep which shows these tactics people keep talking about too. Yet to see it...

Give me a month. I get one day a month to play, and my last game day was spent demoing age of sigmar and playing in a crusade of fire gladiator tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I damn well would play this game. I've backed kickstarters that had worse rules than this in an attempt to get a large scale easy to learn skirmish game out into the world.

I haven't been able to find people to play mageknight in forever. This game lets me play a game type I enjoy with some decent chance of actually finding an opponent.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Give me a month. I get one day a month to play, and my last game day was spent demoing age of sigmar and playing in a crusade of fire gladiator tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I damn well would play this game. I've backed kickstarters that had worse rules than this in an attempt to get a large scale easy to learn skirmish game out into the world.

I haven't been able to find people to play mageknight in forever. This game lets me play a game type I enjoy with some decent chance of actually finding an opponent.

Again due to the GW label. Do you think if this mageknight game had AOS rules it would even be funded? It would be laughed out of kickstarter.

Age of Sigmar is not skirmish either. It's group unit based... not individual unit based.

A unit must
be set up and  nish any sort of move as
a single group of models, with all models
within 1" of at least one other model from
their unit

By this logic 40k is a skirmish game, or Bolt Action...

Except mageknight allowed models to group together, and my prefered way to play was mageknight conquest which was larger scale than most skirmish games, but not full battalions either. It also removed the facing issues from non uniques to make them more efficient.

If you were to try and do a large scale skirmish where the models all acted independently the game would bog down immediately. Age of sigmar lets me put piles of models on the table while still allowing a more freestyle approach to deployment and terrain utilization that most squad sized games don't allow.

I can brick up, form a line, blob out, man a rampart, hold a valley, defend a hill, have units climb a ladder, or completely surround squishy units to protect them. Age of sigmar has a simple enough rules set to allow those things to all occure without having to add ANY rules to the game to facilitate it.

I like this world we live in where "fun, dynamic, tactically rich, and enjoyable" is synonymous with "has a GW label." Usually GW just receives nothing but hate, so it is refreshing to see them get some credit for putting out both a relatively solid game system and some pretty gorgeous models. I agree, the level of detail on some of these casts is really phenomenal.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Except mageknight allowed models to group together, and my prefered way to play was mageknight conquest which was larger scale than most skirmish games, but not full battalions either. It also removed the facing issues from non uniques to make them more efficient.

If you were to try and do a large scale skirmish where the models all acted independently the game would bog down immediately. Age of sigmar lets me put piles of models on the table while still allowing a more freestyle approach to deployment and terrain utilization that most squad sized games don't allow.

I can brick up, form a line, blob out, man a rampart, hold a valley, defend a hill, have units climb a ladder, or completely surround squishy units to protect them. Age of sigmar has a simple enough rules set to allow those things to all occure without having to add ANY rules to the game to facilitate it.

No skirmish games are for forces of individual models who act as their own units. I am fairly sure this is the very definition of a Skirmish game actually...

A large scale skirmish would just be a game with more models on the board following skirmish rules. Lord of the Rings is a small or large scale skirmish game for example.

I have absolutely no idea what you are on about with AOS allowing you to do X that other games don't, because already 40k does exactly the same thing AOS can do and the list keeps growing after that. Everything you said in that last sentence can be done in any game too by the way... without any rules to state you are allowed (most state it anyway to be clear).

quiestdeus wrote:
I like this world we live in where "fun, dynamic, tactically rich, and enjoyable" is synonymous with "has a GW label." Usually GW just receives nothing but hate, so it is refreshing to see them get some credit for putting out both a relatively solid game system and some pretty gorgeous models. I agree, the level of detail on some of these casts is really phenomenal.

You haven't just said tacticaly rich have you heh. Fun and enjoyable that is absolutely subjective and I found it to be neither. Also how is it dynamic, do you mean movement ranges or the speed at which things die or sth else.

I would also argue relatively solid, is there something less solid?

Then gorgeous models, I have yet to find a second one in AoS with the first being the babygryph. I'm usualy first to buy a starter or two no matter the armies just for sheer conversion potential (chaos/ undead), to have cheap armies to be able to play various games at home just with my stuff etc, but I haven't buy a box or a single squad. I don't even like Khorne guys, they look something in the middle between fantasy and 40k and are useless for both imo, might buy a Khorgorath for dreadnought conversions and maybe the wings but that's it. Now sigmarines, I have days when I try to let AoS fluff/ visuals grow on me as a high fantasy magical world but it usualy takes one look at sigmarine art/ model to kill it. All I see are fat and derpy space marine wannabes and those designs actualy disilusioned me a lot about GW models in general, they're so bad in my eyes. Again, subjective and I'd say there's a lot of negative feedback about them.

 Swastakowey wrote:



Anyone who plays AOS should play a game that is actually scenario based. I bet once you try AOS again you will make many changes if what you really enjoy is scenario based games.

AOS is a mission based game. You get given a mission, you select your forces, then you slaughter the enemy until victory. This is not a scenario based game, this is a gamey game. This is warhammer 40k without points. This is like many FPS games with their missions and army set up. This is not a scenario game people.

The ONLY reason this game is played is because of a GW logo. No other game would have traction (as it would have been laughed at) with these rules.

The problem with that is that it makes the game very hard to start with. If scenario requires the use of units you don't own your losing the game before it even started, and worse it is possible that your faction doesn't even have such unit, so even someone with a big army from WFB times won't be able to win.

I have seen a game between to people with the starter set, they had some sort of grab the objective and run mission and the marine player just landed on it turn 1 with his jump troops and then run for 6 turns with it and won a small victory. The chaos player was not very happy about how they split the box.

 Mymearan wrote:
I don't think anyone has said that 125 people were working on the system, more likely it was a small project group doing most of the development.

Yes. My point is that GW could and should have put a lot more resources into development and made a much more innovative system. Though actually, comparing GW with WRG, you don't need a large amount of resources to review a game genre and produce a highly innovative system compared to your previous game. It can be done by quite a small team in quite a short amount of time.

Well, played AoS on Monday night again, and it was pretty fun. I must say that AoS has consumed way more of my time than I ever expected.

The way I look at GW games and AoS is that they're designed more to be entertainment than "serious games". It's a lot like books or movies that aren't really insightful or even particularly original, but just fun to read or watch for people who like that kind of stuff; for these folks, these movies are a whole other awesome, and (literally) they can't get enough special effects, car chase scenes, cute assassin chicks, big explosions and, of course, happy Hollywood endings. For people looking for something else, these are usually "regurgitated garbage", "mindless drivel" or any number of other denigrating monikers. It doesn't change that the crowd pleasers make a lot of money, and there's definitely entertainment value for people willing to blow $50 for a night out at the theatre for two (or, like, $80+ with a couple of kids).

I put myself in those shoes too, and see AoS through the same lens. It's not that I'm not a "serious hobbyist" or not a "real gamer". It's just that I have plenty of deep thought during my personal and professional life; there are plenty of hard choices and tough decisions at work and at home, so when it comes to gaming (or television, or film, or literature), I usually am not alone and I want to be entertained, rather than to work with something technically sophisticated and excellent, but of low entertainment value to me.

This, principally, is why I play wargames with cool models and nice terrain, rather than games like chess; and why I play scenarios and campaigns, rather than "two strangers meet and duke it out" -- for the entertainment value.

And I'm not saying that's *always* what I want... just mostly. This is why I've always said, the questions of, "is it fun? does it look cool?" are really the most important one to me.

Incidentally, even the books are made to be high entertainment value. Probably 30-40% of the books are artwork (or photography) on nice quality paper more befitting a coffee table or library than a gamer's backpack. The rest is widely spaced, easy to read content.

On the other subject about the AoS models, specifically the new ones, I think it was simply an unveiled attempt at GW to get 40k space marine lovers to buy fantasy models and try a fantasy-themed game. Let's face it, if you *love* space marines, you'll probably at least like the Sigmarites. I mean, gold armor, superhuman knights, glowing razor wings, shoulder pads, shields, heraldry, and warhammers... for the folks who have closets full of space marines, what's not to like, right?

I don't really see anything wrong with that, and for the folks who dislike space marines, are just sick of seeing them, or think that these guys just get way too much attention... well, they certainly will not like Stormcast Eternals.

My bad, ignore!

@Talys I agree with what you say about AoS. The existence of it is not a problem and neither are people who want lightweight fun. The problem is it replaced a more ambitious game and part of a playerbase was simply messaged to feth off. If Heroes of Might and Magic gets a sequel and it's shallow then it's ok and noone cares, that's what you expect. If Age of Wonders got a sequel and it would be dumbed dow n to Heroes level, the outrage in the player base would be guaranteed and intense. What GW should have done was to fix and improve whfb, release AoS and support both games maybe with the whfb stuff direct only if they needed shelf space so much, hardly anyone would say a word I surely wouldn't and they could have lion man on lions riding lions and sigmarines only universe, no problem.

Also noone says it's wrong to like it or sth, it will obviously be ok for people with attitude like yours. It's just claims that it's a deeply tactical game that works flawlessly as written and can stand a comparision to other, tighter and more serious rulesets that warrant a discussion to say the least.

As for sigmarines and space marines, not exactly. I don't hate space marines, prefer csm/ nids but have a small Dark Angels force, some templars and lots of termies. Sigmarines just don't have the menace of space marines and lack the facist psychopath vibe, I'm sure they could have created an visualy acceptable sm equivalent for fantasy (I would hate it conceptualy anyway though) but just failed. Imo sigmarines are just lame and just not cool.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Except mageknight allowed models to group together, and my prefered way to play was mageknight conquest which was larger scale than most skirmish games, but not full battalions either. It also removed the facing issues from non uniques to make them more efficient.

If you were to try and do a large scale skirmish where the models all acted independently the game would bog down immediately. Age of sigmar lets me put piles of models on the table while still allowing a more freestyle approach to deployment and terrain utilization that most squad sized games don't allow.

I can brick up, form a line, blob out, man a rampart, hold a valley, defend a hill, have units climb a ladder, or completely surround squishy units to protect them. Age of sigmar has a simple enough rules set to allow those things to all occure without having to add ANY rules to the game to facilitate it.

No skirmish games are for forces of individual models who act as their own units. I am fairly sure this is the very definition of a Skirmish game actually...

A large scale skirmish would just be a game with more models on the board following skirmish rules. Lord of the Rings is a small or large scale skirmish game for example.

I have absolutely no idea what you are on about with AOS allowing you to do X that other games don't, because already 40k does exactly the same thing AOS can do and the list keeps growing after that. Everything you said in that last sentence can be done in any game too by the way... without any rules to state you are allowed (most state it anyway to be clear).

And lord of the rings allowed models to be fielded in units. Age of sigmar allows for those things without more rules to cover eventualities. With melee weapons having ranges there is no need to explain what happens when a model is above another, or if they are on either side of a wall.

As far as I was concerned a skirmish game was one without needing to field armies in ranks and doesn't need you to buy vast sums of models to play effectively. I hadn't thought that it was a direct label that had set parameters.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
@Talys I agree with what you say about AoS. The existence of it is not a problem and neither are people who want lightweight fun. The problem is it replaced a more ambitious game and part of a playerbase was simply messaged to feth off. If Heroes of Might and Magic gets a sequel and it's shallow then it's ok and noone cares, that's what you expect. If Age of Wonders got a sequel and it would be dumbed dow n to Heroes level, the outrage in the player base would be guaranteed and intense. What GW should have done was to fix and improve whfb, release AoS and support both games maybe with the whfb stuff direct only if they needed shelf space so much, hardly anyone would say a word I surely wouldn't and they could have lion man on lions riding lions and sigmarines only universe, no problem.

Subjectivity alert! SOME do not like the outcome, but for many GW *DID* (and I cannot emphasize that enough) fix WHFB. At the end of the day GW is a company whose purpose is to make money. WHFB was NOT accomplishing this goal, enough has already been posted about this fact. They switched it up and attempted to fix the problem, the results remain to be seen, and frankly, will not be seen for years given how poorly WHFB was already doing - GW had very little to actually lose.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Also noone says it's wrong to like it or sth, it will obviously be ok for people with attitude like yours. It's just claims that it's a deeply tactical game that works flawlessly as written and can stand a comparision to other, tighter and more serious rulesets that warrant a discussion to say the least.

In all honesty, the only people who are making this claim of absolution are the ones who are trying so hard to (1) refute it in the first place; and (2) the ones who dislike the game and feel upset they were told to "feth off"

Why is your opinion right, or better than mine? I find tactical depth in the sheer number of combinations the interactions warscrolls provide. Should I run spears behind swordsmen? Should I cast mystic shield on those swordsmen or regrowth on my calvary? Is it worth risking my wizard to create that dispel attempt next turn, or can I afford to wait it out longer? There are as many tactical decisions to make in game that have as much impact as anything I have ever played in WHFB, 40k, Malifaux, or even Blood Bowl. They are just DIFFERENT. You do not like the difference. We get it. The forum gets it. The internet...gets...it.

While you are obviously entitled to your opinion, can you see how it just becomes annoying when the same negative rhetoric is posted continually as new faces attempt to post, or old faces bring new experiences to the conversation?

I have argued there is tactical depth to the game, and will continue to do so, based on my actual experiences as both a player and a tournament organizer. I have gone out of my way to even point out that one of the best aspects of the game is that you can easily add to and modify the core rules to make the game better. You know, the same exact thing that happens in nearly all of (if not all of) those other "more serious rulesets" you conveniently left vague? Personally, I would hardly consider that a claim the game "works flawlessly as written" but it sure as hell is a tactically deep game, and if others play it straight rules as written and have fun, why are they wrong to believe it is tactically deep?

Why is your opinion that is not any better/correct than one believing that it is?

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Except mageknight allowed models to group together, and my prefered way to play was mageknight conquest which was larger scale than most skirmish games, but not full battalions either. It also removed the facing issues from non uniques to make them more efficient.

If you were to try and do a large scale skirmish where the models all acted independently the game would bog down immediately. Age of sigmar lets me put piles of models on the table while still allowing a more freestyle approach to deployment and terrain utilization that most squad sized games don't allow.

I can brick up, form a line, blob out, man a rampart, hold a valley, defend a hill, have units climb a ladder, or completely surround squishy units to protect them. Age of sigmar has a simple enough rules set to allow those things to all occure without having to add ANY rules to the game to facilitate it.

No skirmish games are for forces of individual models who act as their own units. I am fairly sure this is the very definition of a Skirmish game actually...

A large scale skirmish would just be a game with more models on the board following skirmish rules. Lord of the Rings is a small or large scale skirmish game for example.

I have absolutely no idea what you are on about with AOS allowing you to do X that other games don't, because already 40k does exactly the same thing AOS can do and the list keeps growing after that. Everything you said in that last sentence can be done in any game too by the way... without any rules to state you are allowed (most state it anyway to be clear).

And lord of the rings allowed models to be fielded in units. Age of sigmar allows for those things without more rules to cover eventualities. With melee weapons having ranges there is no need to explain what happens when a model is above another, or if they are on either side of a wall.

As far as I was concerned a skirmish game was one without needing to field armies in ranks and doesn't need you to buy vast sums of models to play effectively. I hadn't thought that it was a direct label that had set parameters.

No it didn't... in Lord of the rings you are not limited to units ever? You don't even purchase units, you purchase models. The games are as small or big as you want. The rules are incredibly simple yet deep. It is a true skirmish game. You get buffs when models are close together depending on the situation, but there is no such thing as a unit in that game...

As far as your concern, it is wrong. A skirmish game has an army where the units are individuals. Im pretty sure if you google skirmish game this is the definition that comes up too.

It's funny actually, LOTR sounds more like the large scale skirmish you are after. Yes it takes a minute amount of brain power to learn the system compared to AOS but other than that it has everything you keep talking about wanting in AOS...

 Swastakowey wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Except mageknight allowed models to group together, and my prefered way to play was mageknight conquest which was larger scale than most skirmish games, but not full battalions either. It also removed the facing issues from non uniques to make them more efficient.

If you were to try and do a large scale skirmish where the models all acted independently the game would bog down immediately. Age of sigmar lets me put piles of models on the table while still allowing a more freestyle approach to deployment and terrain utilization that most squad sized games don't allow.

I can brick up, form a line, blob out, man a rampart, hold a valley, defend a hill, have units climb a ladder, or completely surround squishy units to protect them. Age of sigmar has a simple enough rules set to allow those things to all occure without having to add ANY rules to the game to facilitate it.

No skirmish games are for forces of individual models who act as their own units. I am fairly sure this is the very definition of a Skirmish game actually...

A large scale skirmish would just be a game with more models on the board following skirmish rules. Lord of the Rings is a small or large scale skirmish game for example.

I have absolutely no idea what you are on about with AOS allowing you to do X that other games don't, because already 40k does exactly the same thing AOS can do and the list keeps growing after that. Everything you said in that last sentence can be done in any game too by the way... without any rules to state you are allowed (most state it anyway to be clear).

And lord of the rings allowed models to be fielded in units. Age of sigmar allows for those things without more rules to cover eventualities. With melee weapons having ranges there is no need to explain what happens when a model is above another, or if they are on either side of a wall.

As far as I was concerned a skirmish game was one without needing to field armies in ranks and doesn't need you to buy vast sums of models to play effectively. I hadn't thought that it was a direct label that had set parameters.

No it didn't... in Lord of the rings you are not limited to units ever? You don't even purchase units, you purchase models. The games are as small or big as you want. The rules are incredibly simple yet deep. It is a true skirmish game. You get buffs when models are close together depending on the situation, but there is no such thing as a unit in that game...

As far as your concern, it is wrong. A skirmish game has an army where the units are individuals. Im pretty sure if you google skirmish game this is the definition that comes up too.

It's funny actually, LOTR sounds more like the large scale skirmish you are after. Yes it takes a minute amount of brain power to learn the system compared to AOS but other than that it has everything you keep talking about wanting in AOS...

Mate there is no conclusive or official definition of what a skirmish game even is. Its an arbitrary distinction, purely for the purpose of categorizing games in internet arguments. I've heard people describe both single model unit and low model/troop count (regardless of unit size) games as being skirmish, and to verify this I did a Google search for "skirmish game definition". The first page of results (relevant searches start trailing off at page 2) are all either dictionary definitions of the word skirmish (which funny enough are also relatively variable depending on which dictionary website you look at) and people discussing the definition on tabletop gaming forums.

http://www.wargamerau.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=76927

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/942209/differences-between-wargame-and-skirmish-game

http://deltavector.blogspot.com/2015/04/game-design-44-skirmish-wargaming-means.html

http://skirmishwargaming.com/skirmish-wargaming/

In all cases there are people who argue for each side, and in some cases entirely different definitions (such as average game time). I have yet to see any actual authority on the subject, primarily because (as with most arbitrary distinctions) there is no authority to reference.

Edit:For the purpose of clarity.

Jack Flask wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Except mageknight allowed models to group together, and my prefered way to play was mageknight conquest which was larger scale than most skirmish games, but not full battalions either. It also removed the facing issues from non uniques to make them more efficient.

If you were to try and do a large scale skirmish where the models all acted independently the game would bog down immediately. Age of sigmar lets me put piles of models on the table while still allowing a more freestyle approach to deployment and terrain utilization that most squad sized games don't allow.

I can brick up, form a line, blob out, man a rampart, hold a valley, defend a hill, have units climb a ladder, or completely surround squishy units to protect them. Age of sigmar has a simple enough rules set to allow those things to all occure without having to add ANY rules to the game to facilitate it.

No skirmish games are for forces of individual models who act as their own units. I am fairly sure this is the very definition of a Skirmish game actually...

A large scale skirmish would just be a game with more models on the board following skirmish rules. Lord of the Rings is a small or large scale skirmish game for example.

I have absolutely no idea what you are on about with AOS allowing you to do X that other games don't, because already 40k does exactly the same thing AOS can do and the list keeps growing after that. Everything you said in that last sentence can be done in any game too by the way... without any rules to state you are allowed (most state it anyway to be clear).

And lord of the rings allowed models to be fielded in units. Age of sigmar allows for those things without more rules to cover eventualities. With melee weapons having ranges there is no need to explain what happens when a model is above another, or if they are on either side of a wall.

As far as I was concerned a skirmish game was one without needing to field armies in ranks and doesn't need you to buy vast sums of models to play effectively. I hadn't thought that it was a direct label that had set parameters.

No it didn't... in Lord of the rings you are not limited to units ever? You don't even purchase units, you purchase models. The games are as small or big as you want. The rules are incredibly simple yet deep. It is a true skirmish game. You get buffs when models are close together depending on the situation, but there is no such thing as a unit in that game...

As far as your concern, it is wrong. A skirmish game has an army where the units are individuals. Im pretty sure if you google skirmish game this is the definition that comes up too.

It's funny actually, LOTR sounds more like the large scale skirmish you are after. Yes it takes a minute amount of brain power to learn the system compared to AOS but other than that it has everything you keep talking about wanting in AOS...

Mate there is no conclusive or official definition of what a skirmish game even is. Its an arbitrary distinction, purely for the purpose of categorizing games in internet arguments. I've heard people describe both single model unit and low model/troop count (regardless of unit size) games as being skirmish, and to verify this I did a Google search for "skirmish game definition". The first page of results (relevant searches start trailing off at page 2) are all either dictionary definitions of the word skirmish (which funny enough are also relatively variable depending on which dictionary website you look at) and people discussing the definition on tabletop gaming forums.

http://www.wargamerau.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=76927

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/942209/differences-between-wargame-and-skirmish-game

http://deltavector.blogspot.com/2015/04/game-design-44-skirmish-wargaming-means.html

http://skirmishwargaming.com/skirmish-wargaming/

In all cases there are people who argue for each side, and in some cases entirely different definitions (such as average game time). I have yet to see any actual authority on the subject, primarily because (as with most arbitrary distinctions) there is no authority to reference.

Edit:For the purpose of clarity.

So a bunch of randoms on the internet don't know what skirmish is?

A man-to-man wargame[1][2][3] (also known as a skirmish wargame[4]) is a wargame in which units generally represent single individuals or weapons systems, and are rated not only on weaponry but may also be rated on such facets as morale, perception, skill-at-arms, etc

Units are single models. This means each model moves and acts as it's own identity (with appropriate stats etc). In AOS a unit is a group of solders, which kind of makes it not skirmish?

See a skirmish game can have instances where models need to be tied into a group (Maybe for a mission, maybe for a bonus?) hence the generally. But skirmish has meant each model is it's own unit for a long time. Thats why Mordheim, Necromunda, Gorka Morka, Infinity and so on in the fantasy world is called a skirmish game. They follow this principle.

I could have sworn you bought units of soldiers in lord of the rings...

Also, none of the group I played in was interested in the game, some of the minis yes, but not the game itself. Kind of invalidates the whole " it's from games workshop, that's why you play it" argument entirely. We are all huge nerds for that particular world setting, so it wasn't that turning us off of the game either.

Age of sigmar is a good game, we've played several games of it and find it fun. I enjoy the depth of tactics needed to utilise all of the units at my disposal efficiently and have now gathered two significant armies from my model collections to see where I stand (vampire counts and high elves) I never even bothered to see what was available for wfb. I had a friend try to get me into it, I read the movement rules and told him to not bother. He bought me a vc battalion, a codex, a mounted wight, and some dire wolves. I never even opened them and he eventually took them back. We are putting them together now, along with the dwarves and brettonians he has and also never assembled.

Games workshop didn't deserve my time and money before for wfb, they changed my mind with a more fun, free, and quick to start rule set.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, your definition above gives the definition of a man to man wargame, that can also be called a skirmish wargame. That isn't the definition of a skirmish wargame.

A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't always a square.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I could have sworn you bought units of soldiers in lord of the rings...

Also, none of the group I played in was interested in the game, some of the minis yes, but not the game itself. Kind of invalidates the whole " it's from games workshop, that's why you play it" argument entirely. We are all huge nerds for that particular world setting, so it wasn't that turning us off of the game either.

Age of sigmar is a good game, we've played several games of it and find it fun. I enjoy the depth of tactics needed to utilise all of the units at my disposal efficiently and have now gathered two significant armies from my model collections to see where I stand (vampire counts and high elves) I never even bothered to see what was available for wfb. I had a friend try to get me into it, I read the movement rules and told him to not bother. He bought me a vc battalion, a codex, a mounted wight, and some dire wolves. I never even opened them and he eventually took them back. We are putting them together now, along with the dwarves and brettonians he has and also never assembled.

Games workshop didn't deserve my time and money before for wfb, they changed my mind with a more fun, free, and quick to start rule set.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, your definition above gives the definition of a man to man wargame, that can also be called a skirmish wargame. That isn't the definition of a skirmish wargame.

A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't always a square.

In lord of the rings you need a captain per X men, but they are not units. They move and do as they please on a per model basis. You can have as few or as many as you want.

I would say GW charges more for LOTR than any of their other game systems, doesn't have full rules and hardly supports it is the reason for it's downfall. It was once an incredibly popular and cheap game to play. If GW treated AOS like they treated LOTR then AOS would end up the same. But yes you have a point there, GW doesn't instantly guarantee success. I still think AOS is only played because of it's label. Before I knew what wargaming was lord of the rings models used to be in magazines at the super market, there was so much of those models everywhere that I thought GW was a lord of the rings model company. When I first started playing thats what everyone used to play. Of course things have changed since then but despite being incredibly hard to get into now it still has a huge following. I doubt AOS will ever be as popular as LOTR was in it's prime (well AOS is dead here but still).

Good point about the man to man, in which case skirmish really means nothing except what you want it to mean I suppose.

WFB sucked too, just not as bad as AOS.

 Swastakowey wrote:

So a bunch of randoms on the internet don't know what skirmish is?

A man-to-man wargame[1][2][3] (also known as a skirmish wargame[4]) is a wargame in which units generally represent single individuals or weapons systems, and are rated not only on weaponry but may also be rated on such facets as morale, perception, skill-at-arms, etc

Units are single models. This means each model moves and acts as it's own identity (with appropriate stats etc). In AOS a unit is a group of solders, which kind of makes it not skirmish?

See a skirmish game can have instances where models need to be tied into a group (Maybe for a mission, maybe for a bonus?) hence the generally. But skirmish has meant each model is it's own unit for a long time. Thats why Mordheim, Necromunda, Gorka Morka, Infinity and so on in the fantasy world is called a skirmish game. They follow this principle.

Where is that definition from, and why should anyone accept it as more true than any other?

You can't just throw out some random statement and expect it to be meaningful, that's not how an argument works. You have to make a claim and back it up with relevant, verifiable, and convincing evidence if you actually want whatever you're saying to hold weight. Otherwise, your argument is rendered irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Jack Flask wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

So a bunch of randoms on the internet don't know what skirmish is?

A man-to-man wargame[1][2][3] (also known as a skirmish wargame[4]) is a wargame in which units generally represent single individuals or weapons systems, and are rated not only on weaponry but may also be rated on such facets as morale, perception, skill-at-arms, etc

Units are single models. This means each model moves and acts as it's own identity (with appropriate stats etc). In AOS a unit is a group of solders, which kind of makes it not skirmish?

See a skirmish game can have instances where models need to be tied into a group (Maybe for a mission, maybe for a bonus?) hence the generally. But skirmish has meant each model is it's own unit for a long time. Thats why Mordheim, Necromunda, Gorka Morka, Infinity and so on in the fantasy world is called a skirmish game. They follow this principle.

Where is that definition from, and why should anyone accept it as more true than any other?

You can't just throw out some random statement and expect it to be meaningful, that's not how an argument works. You have to make a claim and back it up with relevant, verifiable, and convincing evidence if you actually want whatever you're saying to hold weight. Otherwise, your argument is rendered irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Man to man is also known as a skirmish game. It's the only definition relating to skirmish war game in Wikipedia. Even though Wikipedia is not often allowed as a source it is better than random forums. Although someone has contested that man to man does not cover all skirmish (I disagree, as per Wikipedia) but I suppose it's up to you to decide.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Jack Flask wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

So a bunch of randoms on the internet don't know what skirmish is?

A man-to-man wargame[1][2][3] (also known as a skirmish wargame[4]) is a wargame in which units generally represent single individuals or weapons systems, and are rated not only on weaponry but may also be rated on such facets as morale, perception, skill-at-arms, etc

Units are single models. This means each model moves and acts as it's own identity (with appropriate stats etc). In AOS a unit is a group of solders, which kind of makes it not skirmish?

See a skirmish game can have instances where models need to be tied into a group (Maybe for a mission, maybe for a bonus?) hence the generally. But skirmish has meant each model is it's own unit for a long time. Thats why Mordheim, Necromunda, Gorka Morka, Infinity and so on in the fantasy world is called a skirmish game. They follow this principle.

Where is that definition from, and why should anyone accept it as more true than any other?

You can't just throw out some random statement and expect it to be meaningful, that's not how an argument works. You have to make a claim and back it up with relevant, verifiable, and convincing evidence if you actually want whatever you're saying to hold weight. Otherwise, your argument is rendered irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Man to man is also known as a skirmish game. It's the only definition relating to skirmish war game in Wikipedia. Even though Wikipedia is not often allowed as a source it is better than random forums. Although someone has contested that man to man does not cover all skirmish (I disagree, as per Wikipedia) but I suppose it's up to you to decide.

The problem with Wikipedia isn't that it's inherently unusable because academia says so, but because topics have the potential to be misrepresented by biased/ignorant editors or are simply based on no credible primary sources.

This article you linked is absolutely an example of the latter, and no offense, but I can tell you didn't bother to check the sources before quoting it. The article uses only four sources, three to establish the term "man to man wargame" and one to establish the supposedly synonymous term "skirmish wargame".

If you look at the first three sources, all of them are from what are essentially blogs, all three being product reviews of man-to-man wargames from enthusiast sites. The fourth source which supposedly equates the term "skirmish" with "man-to-man", isn't even really a source at all. Its actually just a Board Game Geek page with a transcription of the publisher advertisement for the games Mindstalkers, in which the game is self described as a "skirmish game".

Effectively, the wikipedia article you posted has no factual basis whatsoever and is even flagged as being a bad article. Which was more or less the point I was trying to make previously that, outside of forum debates, I was unable to find an actual definition of what a skirmish game even is. Which means that unless there is a credible and convincing source by which to define the term, then it's an unclear and highly fluid distinction.

Jack Flask wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Jack Flask wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

So a bunch of randoms on the internet don't know what skirmish is?

A man-to-man wargame[1][2][3] (also known as a skirmish wargame[4]) is a wargame in which units generally represent single individuals or weapons systems, and are rated not only on weaponry but may also be rated on such facets as morale, perception, skill-at-arms, etc

Units are single models. This means each model moves and acts as it's own identity (with appropriate stats etc). In AOS a unit is a group of solders, which kind of makes it not skirmish?

See a skirmish game can have instances where models need to be tied into a group (Maybe for a mission, maybe for a bonus?) hence the generally. But skirmish has meant each model is it's own unit for a long time. Thats why Mordheim, Necromunda, Gorka Morka, Infinity and so on in the fantasy world is called a skirmish game. They follow this principle.

Where is that definition from, and why should anyone accept it as more true than any other?

You can't just throw out some random statement and expect it to be meaningful, that's not how an argument works. You have to make a claim and back it up with relevant, verifiable, and convincing evidence if you actually want whatever you're saying to hold weight. Otherwise, your argument is rendered irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Man to man is also known as a skirmish game. It's the only definition relating to skirmish war game in Wikipedia. Even though Wikipedia is not often allowed as a source it is better than random forums. Although someone has contested that man to man does not cover all skirmish (I disagree, as per Wikipedia) but I suppose it's up to you to decide.

The problem with Wikipedia isn't that it's inherently unusable because academia says so, but because topics have the potential to be misrepresented by biased/ignorant editors or are simply based on no credible primary sources.

This article you linked is absolutely an example of the latter, and no offense, but I can tell you didn't bother to check the sources before quoting it. The article uses only four sources, three to establish the term "man to man wargame" and one to establish the supposedly synonymous term "skirmish wargame".

If you look at the first three sources, all of them are from what are essentially blogs, all three being product reviews of man-to-man wargames from enthusiast sites. The fourth source which supposedly equates the term "skirmish" with "man-to-man", isn't even really a source at all. Its actually just a Board Game Geek page with a transcription of the publisher advertisement for the games Mindstalkers, in which the game is self described as a "skirmish game".

Effectively, the wikipedia article you posted has no factual basis whatsoever and is even flagged as being a bad article. Which was more or less the point I was trying to make previously that, outside of forum debates, I was unable to find an actual definition of what a skirmish game even is. Which means that unless there is a credible and convincing source by which to define the term, then it's an unclear and highly fluid distinction.

Fair enough. So there is no definition of a skirmish wargame at all then. (there isn't) so the word skirmish is somewhat meaningless yes?

To be honest I thought skirmish games actually meant models that acted as their own units. Never played a skirmish game where this was not the case. But as I said a post above yours, I suppose skirmish means nothing really. May as well simply call it a table top game. AOS certainly is not skirmish like the games who people actually call skirmish. It's no different to 40k in game type.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Fair enough. So there is no definition of a skirmish wargame at all then. (there isn't) so the word skirmish is somewhat meaningless yes?

To be honest I thought skirmish games actually meant models that acted as their own units. Never played a skirmish game where this was not the case. But as I said a post above yours, I suppose skirmish means nothing really.

Despite arguing in opposition to you, that was also the definition which I associate with the term "skirmish wargame". I'm more making the case on account of your argument against Lythrandire's own usage.

Swastakowey wrote:May as well simply call it a table top game.

I mean at the very least the term man-to-man wargame, while not really one to roll off the tongue, doesn't seem to be contested. At lot of the issue with the term "skirmish wargame" likely stems from the definition of skirmish which, being vaguely some sort of small battle or conflict, leaves a lot of room for subjective definitions of what constitutes a "small" conflict.

Edit: *sigh* I type this out and then you add an addendum to your post.

Swastakowey wrote:AOS certainly is not skirmish like the games who people actually call skirmish. It's no different to 40k in game type.

Again, my point is that while you and I may not use the term that way, there absolutely are people who do. Not just Lythrandire, but also other posters on Dakka as well as some people in this thread (unfortunately I cant link to specific post, but I'm referring to John the OFM).

The thing is that despite one definition being commonly understood or popular, that doesn't strictly invalidate another definition which also has a number of proponents (in other words not just one outlier).

Jack Flask wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Fair enough. So there is no definition of a skirmish wargame at all then. (there isn't) so the word skirmish is somewhat meaningless yes?

To be honest I thought skirmish games actually meant models that acted as their own units. Never played a skirmish game where this was not the case. But as I said a post above yours, I suppose skirmish means nothing really.

Despite arguing in opposition to you, that was also the definition which I associate with the term "skirmish wargame". I'm more making the case on account of your argument against Lythrandire's own usage.

Swastakowey wrote:May as well simply call it a table top game.

I mean at the very least the term man-to-man wargame, while not really one to roll off the tongue, doesn't seem to be contested. At lot of the issue with the term "skirmish wargame" likely stems from the definition of skirmish which, being vaguely some sort of small battle or conflict, leaves a lot of room for subjective definitions of what constitutes a "small" conflict.

Pretty much the case yes.

Actually, I'd use Henry Hyde's (a rather well known name in the wargaming world) Wargaming Compendium as a decent place to start when describing skirmish games.

Hyde's definition of skirmish basically boils down to the fact that "the miniatures on the table are representative of nothing more than themselves - which is to say, a scale of 1:1." These games can range from a dozen models on each side, to platoons meeting in a prelude to an arriving company or battalion.

He even admits that 40k is "essentially" a skirmish game, if hugely bloated by GW's constant one-upping the sizes of various miniatures in the different factions.

So, AoS is a skirmish game.

I've been playing wargames for over 40 years. I've never heard of the term man-to-man game. The term "skirmish game" has always in my experience referred to land warfare games using primarily infantry and cavalry organised on the basis of one figure equals one man and the figures move independently.

This distinction was important because in larger scale warfare men are always organised in units for movement and combat, and the unit continues to exist if a few men get knocked out and to a great extent suffers little reduction of its fighting powers..

Most skirmish games involve a dozen or so figures per side. If you want to use larger numbers it becomes convenient to create a rule to move some of the weaker figures in masses, or else you end up spending too much time on movement and combat. I used this approach myself in games of Laserburn featuring a few high tech troops against large numbers of primitive natives.

I call this approach mass skirmish and it is the same way that GW went for 40K and AoS. It is very appropriate for 40K which is more similar to modern infantry combat, in which troops spread out for cover and defence against area weapons, and to be able to employ rapid fire projectile weapons effectively.

In AoS which has little cover effect, no (maybe a few?) area weapons, and weak projectile weapons, it is not a realistic approach. in melee combat, close mutual support is much more important, so men group into formations. While AoS has no rules for formations, we have seen already that players are naturally creating formations to optimise the use of their melee weapons.

There are indeed area weapons, although I don't know how many. You choose a point within range and everything within X" of that point takes damage. Breath attacks for example.

quiestdeus wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
@Talys I agree with what you say about AoS. The existence of it is not a problem and neither are people who want lightweight fun. The problem is it replaced a more ambitious game and part of a playerbase was simply messaged to feth off. If Heroes of Might and Magic gets a sequel and it's shallow then it's ok and noone cares, that's what you expect. If Age of Wonders got a sequel and it would be dumbed dow n to Heroes level, the outrage in the player base would be guaranteed and intense. What GW should have done was to fix and improve whfb, release AoS and support both games maybe with the whfb stuff direct only if they needed shelf space so much, hardly anyone would say a word I surely wouldn't and they could have lion man on lions riding lions and sigmarines only universe, no problem.

Subjectivity alert! SOME do not like the outcome, but for many GW *DID* (and I cannot emphasize that enough) fix WHFB. At the end of the day GW is a company whose purpose is to make money. WHFB was NOT accomplishing this goal, enough has already been posted about this fact. They switched it up and attempted to fix the problem, the results remain to be seen, and frankly, will not be seen for years given how poorly WHFB was already doing - GW had very little to actually lose.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Also noone says it's wrong to like it or sth, it will obviously be ok for people with attitude like yours. It's just claims that it's a deeply tactical game that works flawlessly as written and can stand a comparision to other, tighter and more serious rulesets that warrant a discussion to say the least.

In all honesty, the only people who are making this claim of absolution are the ones who are trying so hard to (1) refute it in the first place; and (2) the ones who dislike the game and feel upset they were told to "feth off"

Why is your opinion right, or better than mine? I find tactical depth in the sheer number of combinations the interactions warscrolls provide. Should I run spears behind swordsmen? Should I cast mystic shield on those swordsmen or regrowth on my calvary? Is it worth risking my wizard to create that dispel attempt next turn, or can I afford to wait it out longer? There are as many tactical decisions to make in game that have as much impact as anything I have ever played in WHFB, 40k, Malifaux, or even Blood Bowl. They are just DIFFERENT. You do not like the difference. We get it. The forum gets it. The internet...gets...it.

While you are obviously entitled to your opinion, can you see how it just becomes annoying when the same negative rhetoric is posted continually as new faces attempt to post, or old faces bring new experiences to the conversation?

I have argued there is tactical depth to the game, and will continue to do so, based on my actual experiences as both a player and a tournament organizer. I have gone out of my way to even point out that one of the best aspects of the game is that you can easily add to and modify the core rules to make the game better. You know, the same exact thing that happens in nearly all of (if not all of) those other "more serious rulesets" you conveniently left vague? Personally, I would hardly consider that a claim the game "works flawlessly as written" but it sure as hell is a tactically deep game, and if others play it straight rules as written and have fun, why are they wrong to believe it is tactically deep?

Why is your opinion that is not any better/correct than one believing that it is?

GW didn't fix whfb, they killed it. AoS is not whfb. And they didn't release AoS because it was the only option, they released it because they are GW and instead of fixing the game and rules they prefer to try to repeat space marine sales phenomenon in fantasy and write a sales department love letter of a ruleset. It's just GW being cheap and lazy as usual, they released crap 8th edition jacked the prices lost a lot of players and then used it as an excuse to kill it.

Tactical depth is not a matter of opinion. Having fun with the ruleset has nothing to do with it being tacticaly deep or not and obviously you can have fun and be wrong about something the same time. What you described as tactics in AoS is in every other game (cast spell/ risk now or later lol) but other games have other things on top of that.

There is enough meaningful play in AoS to warrant tournament play, assuming working comp ofc. It's still a relatively shallow ruleset and you can find people who like the game admitting that with one guy claiming that it's good because it "mitigates skill" heh. It just wasn't written for the sake of challenging your brain too much over the table, you have people who count it as an advantage so maybe it's you who can't get over GW having a different target than tourneys and competitive players.

You get into the middle of discussion about tactical depth in AoS and post that the game is tacticaly rich and then complain about being called on that. Annoying indeed.

You can add/ modify in other games sure but you have to in AoS. And while whfb for example required lot of fixing for tournament play, now you're writing entire aspects of game for GW. Kudos for that ofc but that's not a sign that the game is good, please.

Conviniently vague? Every other major wargame is more serious than AoS. Warmachine, Malifaux, Xwing, LotR, Infinity, 40k, Kings of War whatever.

 infinite_array wrote:
Hyde's definition of skirmish basically boils down to the fact that "the miniatures on the table are representative of nothing more than themselves - which is to say, a scale of 1:1." These games can range from a dozen models on each side, to platoons meeting in a prelude to an arriving company or battalion.

By that logic Flames of War is a skirmish game.

I don't think that's a terribly good definition.

EDIT: no point

 Mymearan wrote:
There are indeed area weapons, although I don't know how many. You choose a point within range and everything within X" of that point takes damage. Breath attacks for example.

Well so, but they are rare compared to modern warfare in which even individual men are equipped with automatic weapons. Therefore most of the time in AoS you will gain an advantage in melee by closing up your formation to concentrate attacks, and if a dragon arrives on the scene you will spread out your formation to deal with it.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
Hyde's definition of skirmish basically boils down to the fact that "the miniatures on the table are representative of nothing more than themselves - which is to say, a scale of 1:1." These games can range from a dozen models on each side, to platoons meeting in a prelude to an arriving company or battalion.

By that logic Flames of War is a skirmish game.

I don't think that's a terribly good definition.

FoW is not a skirmish game by that definition, for two reasons. The first is that infantry, guns and artillery are made up of stands instead of individual bases and aren't wounded in a fashion that counts models individually. A stand of three infantry is the same 'strength' as a stand of six infantry. Second, the scale - FoW is a company-level game with battalion-level support. It's scale is far too large for the battles it is reenacting to be called "skirmishes".

Age of sigmar is better. Warhammer fantasy shoehorned a bunch of unnecessary rules into it in an attempt to make the game SEEM more tactical than it is.

The game has always been designed to sell models, every wargame with its own miniatures for the setting is.

Why is it when people bring up examples of tactics for age of sigmar the response is always " other games have that, and MORE " but the tactics put forth as the "more" examples are the exact same tactics used in age of sigmar but with extra rules to make you strive for it? Why does a decision have to be a statistical benefit as opposed to a... Tactical one?

That was answered like 20 times already, you would post the same argument even if someone provided an equation showing it.

Someone mentioned that AoS has hit and run tactics with cavalry. Apart from how crude they are, do you know why they even work? Because cavalry have bonuses for charge on warscrolls. No modifiers, no fun, deal with it.

Ofc if the mechanics were really smart, then you could have benefits significant enough for tactics to be valid but they're not, they're simple and that basic pile in is not an equivalent of detailed rules/ good abstracy mechanism

Or maybe just post those battle reports with oh so much tactics.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Age of sigmar is better. Warhammer fantasy shoehorned a bunch of unnecessary rules into it in an attempt to make the game SEEM more tactical than it is.

The game has always been designed to sell models, every wargame with its own miniatures for the setting is.

Why is it when people bring up examples of tactics for age of sigmar the response is always " other games have that, and MORE " but the tactics put forth as the "more" examples are the exact same tactics used in age of sigmar but with extra rules to make you strive for it? Why does a decision have to be a statistical benefit as opposed to a... Tactical one?

There are people who just aren't happy with minimalist rules. I think you can be a better AoS player if you choose to deploy and utilize your models in more strategic ways than what a lot of folks do. I say this because you can be a better 40k player because there is a ton of strategy in the game if you choose to play in that fashion -- but my observation is that by and large, most folks don't.

For the vast majority of miniature wargamers I've met, being strategic just means learning how to build list of good synergies, deploy smartly and using the tricks of each unit (or synergy between units). Even the combat tactics that plum and others are talking about are mostly just tactics that you learn once, use forever. I mean, to me, flanking is not being strategic; tricking someone into moving their army into a position where they can be outflanked, is. There are rarely times that I encounter people who set good traps, make good unit sacrifices, and really force their opponent to think. It happens, but not really often. A lot of this is also because the pool of players in miniature wargaming is relatively small, and the people you play with tends to become repetitive, even when you're playing "public pickup games". Once you get used to certain players, you notice that they use certain tactics more, others less, and their playstyle is predictable. Certainly, this is so after years or decades of playing in the same group or club.

By and large, this is why I don't really care in the miniature wargaming scene one way or the other, and see the experience as more entertainment (and eye candy) than intellectual stimulation. When I want the latter, personally, I just find a game like Hearthstone on the PC miles above the tabletop experience, because what happens is, as you get better and are higher ranked, you meet and play people in the world who are also more clever and do unexpected things beyond the obvious.

Edit: I should also add that in miniature games, you're (usually) constrained to fielding the miniatures you own or can bring. So, in almost all miniature games, whether it's Infinity or WMH or 40k or AoS, a "good" player is one who sees what their enemy brings and the table, and is experienced enough to go, "well, these are all the possible things they can do and all of their sneaky tricks". The "bad" player is basically just someone ho doesn't have this knowledge or chooses not to absorb it. There just aren't a lot of brilliant surprises, in my experience (which is okay with me). Like I said, *sure* this could be possible, but it's just not how the vast majority of people that I've run into choose to play tabletop wargames.

DBA rules are very minimalist compared to the preceding WRG 7th Edition, and take up 11 pages of A4 in the rulebook, plus two pages of optional rules (big battles and campaigns) in addition to which there are explanatory diagrams and about 300 army lists.

Nonetheless the game has been extremely successful for casual and tournament play.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Someone mentioned that AoS has hit and run tactics with cavalry. Apart from how crude they are, do you know why they even work? Because cavalry have bonuses for charge on warscrolls.

So just so we're clear from what you've said;
Unit X has a flat bonus to standard game rule A.
Planning/using the unit to capitalise on this is not tactical because it's a bonus?

But if unit X has maneouvered into a position where standard game rule B gave them a bonus to game rule A, that is tactics? (Such as flank charging for +1 combat res)

I am not suggesting AoS is a tactical Mariana trench, but the burden of proof seems impossible because every example of a 'tactic' given just gets dismissed as "it's a special rule" or "the game mechanics are too simple" or some other explanation that never actually explains what counts as a "tactic" to the people laying these criticisms.

It's like trying to sell fossils at a Young Earth convention.

That is the point I've been trying to make!

Also, talys, thank you for what you wrote. I play both of these games in that fashion, my win loss ratio is not bad by any stretch. Hell, my 1500 point pure harlequins army is currently undefeated simply due to thinking tactically. I won't bring the list to fun games because I can't make mistakes with it and it isn't fun to roll through someone's army or be blown completely off the table when you are just having a good time.

I am not suggesting AoS is a tactical Mariana trench, but the burden of proof seems impossible because every example of a 'tactic' given just gets dismissed as "it's a special rule" or "the game mechanics are too simple" or some other explanation that never actually explains what counts as a "tactic" to the people laying these criticisms.

Because table top tactic is something you have to do and not fire off a special rule, that opponents don't have to counter. Pointing 4 cannons and 30 crossbows, like my army, is not tactics, Having impossible to hit flying models, because GW decided to make dwarf models small and flyer stand in AoS have no official size, is not tactics. Deep striking eternals and killing opposing generals with shoting turn 1 for ID victory is not tactics.
Tactics is something one has fit to every opposing army, and not something that works every time , excluding mirror matchs. Warmahordes has tons of tactics, old WFB had some of it, although not for all armies. AoS doesn't have it, because you either win by having a better faction or collection of models, or by playing some gimik build the opposing player can't counter with the models or faction he has.

RoperPG wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Someone mentioned that AoS has hit and run tactics with cavalry. Apart from how crude they are, do you know why they even work? Because cavalry have bonuses for charge on warscrolls.

So just so we're clear from what you've said;
Unit X has a flat bonus to standard game rule A.
Planning/using the unit to capitalise on this is not tactical because it's a bonus?

But if unit X has maneouvered into a position where standard game rule B gave them a bonus to game rule A, that is tactics? (Such as flank charging for +1 combat res)

I am not suggesting AoS is a tactical Mariana trench, but the burden of proof seems impossible because every example of a 'tactic' given just gets dismissed as "it's a special rule" or "the game mechanics are too simple" or some other explanation that never actually explains what counts as a "tactic" to the people laying these criticisms.

It's like trying to sell fossils at a Young Earth convention.

I'm not exactly sure whether I understand your post or not tbh, are you reffering to my earlier posts about combos?

Anyway everything that makes you decide is tactics but some require more thought/ forthought/ sth idk. Nothing absolute here, bonus for manouvering vs just firing up a combo of special rules I'd say the former is more beardstrokeworthy but that obviously depends on complexity, variablity and specifics of the latter.

My point was, some situations require mechanical bonuses to flesh them out and make them matter. Take the bonus away from cavalry, there's no point to the mentioned hit and run anymore.

As for examples well maybe that's because only simple and basic things are mentioned (still tactics though ofc), I was called arrogant in one of such threads (and I probably was heh) but I mainly post like that because it's strikingly obvious for me and have trouble wrapping my head around the fact that there's even a discussion. Few post back you have claims that a game of free roaming directionless blobs is better than a game where units have vulnerable sides/ rear and facing limiting their movement/ attack ability because it's was all false depth in the latter. Which is obvious bs, whfb was not a paragon of tactical gameplay but the mentioned facing adds another layer of planning, reading the opponent and potential for significant/ critical mistake to movement phase. That's the thing, all games have the basic wargameish gameplay elements that make for almost everything AoS has to offer but other games tend to add layers of interaction over that, be it issuing orders in advance, interrupts, turn order manipulation, supression, modifiers, facing, more sophisticated combos idk all the things not present in AoS. The more layers, possibilities, things to take into account, the deeper the gameplay.

I also don't think it's fair to say that what counts as tactics was never explained. First it's all tactics just some more demanding than others and the discussion is about "shallow/ deep" scale and not a 0/1 " not a tactic/ tactic" tick form. Second, it's a third thread like that or sth and there were attempts to define tactical depth already and multiple examples of things adding depth to a game.

@Lythrandire, eagerly awaiting the inevitable "but why is it different?" post from you

Makumba wrote:

I am not suggesting AoS is a tactical Mariana trench, but the burden of proof seems impossible because every example of a 'tactic' given just gets dismissed as "it's a special rule" or "the game mechanics are too simple" or some other explanation that never actually explains what counts as a "tactic" to the people laying these criticisms.

Because table top tactic is something you have to do and not fire off a special rule, that opponents don't have to counter. Pointing 4 cannons and 30 crossbows, like my army, is not tactics, Having impossible to hit flying models, because GW decided to make dwarf models small and flyer stand in AoS have no official size, is not tactics. Deep striking eternals and killing opposing generals with shoting turn 1 for ID victory is not tactics.
Tactics is something one has fit to every opposing army, and not something that works every time , excluding mirror matchs. Warmahordes has tons of tactics, old WFB had some of it, although not for all armies. AoS doesn't have it, because you either win by having a better faction or collection of models, or by playing some gimik build the opposing player can't counter with the models or faction he has.

This is not true at all for comped* play (I have seen very few people arguing for uncomped AoS). I recommend you listen to Heelanhammer episode 134 and 135 for some insight from tournament WHFB players who have been playing quite a lot of AoS and are enjoying it thoroughly, going so far as to say that it's a better game than 8th. Swastakowey and Plubarumrum may want to listen as well since they have been asking for some deeper discussion of AoS, even if it is very early days yet.

*To be clear, when I say comped I mean:
- some sort of points system
- measuring from bases
- limiting summoning
So not rewriting the game or changing tons of rules. Anything beyond this is up to taste.

 Mymearan wrote:

I recommend you listen to Heelanhammer episode 134 and 135 for some insight from tournament WHFB players who have been playing quite a lot of AoS and are enjoying it thoroughly, going so far as to say that it's a better game than 8th. Swastakowey and Plubarumrum may want to listen as well since they have been asking for some deeper discussion of AoS, even if it is very early days yet.

I listened to both podcasts (to be fair I gave up half way through the second). If one is looking for general advice in the spirit of:

-"You need to think about whether to go first or second for the 50% chance to get a second turn in a row."
-"You really need to think where you move your models because of threat range and the 3" control zone."
-"The order in which you go through your units is important."

he is not going to be disappointed. Otherwise I'd recommend not wasting the time on these, but this is just my opinion...

It isn't different, you simply think it is and I will never convince you otherwise. If the core rules had a page that said " units with spears get to reroll hits if they didn't charge or move this turn", "cavalry models get to reroll wounds on a turn in which they charged", and " models varying shields get to reroll ones for saves" you would for some reason believe it added tactical depth.

It doesn't matter that these things are in the game as rules where you need to have them (in the statlines for units it applies to) you refuse to see the amount of ACTUAL rules in the game that add ENORMOUS complexity to the game itself.


Also, blobs are stupid for any sort of significant tactic. But it shouldn't be something you are denied from doing for the sake of making the game SEEM more complex.

Go ahead and demand a battle report from me that I already said would be impossible to do for about a month, I know it's comming

Yea folks seem stuck on the base 4 page rule book. Not the fact that warscrolls include unit's specific rules and buffs (spears, cavalry, charging bonuses, unit bonuses with characyer buffs, etc, etc). When one studies this they see the tactical depth and complexity that aos offers. The dice rolling, etc arguments are not good either as wfb and 40k do all the same thinga this game does too.

My wife initially wouldn't play 40k, infinity, or wwx because they looked too complicated with all the 'rules and tactics' ( and she and her friends used to make fun of us gamers in college). I convinced her to play aos with the 4 page rule book two months ago. She agreed as it looked 'simple'. She is now an avid wargamer and has told me that the rules are actually full of depth, they are just laid out in a simple manner that makes the game easy to learn. We are still learning good tactics, bonuses, etc each time we play.

I also showed her these threads and posts from folks who continously say aos is simple and not equal to other mainstream wargames in tactical depth. I even showed her the post in which a person said aos is more similar to checkers or a board game than a table top war game. She and her friends laughed and said it is far more similar to wwx, 40k, etc than people give it credit for and she thinks people are just (rightfully so) bitter that their game system was killed off.

Nice to see aos got several of our wives into gaming too... they now play many different table top war games!

N

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
It isn't different, you simply think it is and I will never convince you otherwise. If the core rules had a page that said " units with spears get to reroll hits if they didn't charge or move this turn", "cavalry models get to reroll wounds on a turn in which they charged", and " models varying shields get to reroll ones for saves" you would for some reason believe it added tactical depth.

It doesn't matter that these things are in the game as rules where you need to have them (in the statlines for units it applies to) you refuse to see the amount of ACTUAL rules in the game that add ENORMOUS complexity to the game itself.


Also, blobs are stupid for any sort of significant tactic. But it shouldn't be something you are denied from doing for the sake of making the game SEEM more complex.

Go ahead and demand a battle report from me that I already said would be impossible to do for about a month, I know it's comming

Enormous complexity with little added depth. 40k has tons of special rules that bring little to the table as well, it's just noise.

It is different you just think it isn't but I will never convince you otherwise. How can it be the same when units/ models with facing can only attack things in their front arcs. How is it the same when you can't just move backwards freely.

Your examples just show that you don't even understand what I mean. Not to mention I already said that cavalry having bonuses on warscrolls make the tactic valid (shame that the core rules create an environment when it is obvious and a no brainer) so yeah you are wrong, I know my post can be hard to read but please just try next time.

I only demanded a battle rep once from you I think. It's not the even closely resembling your "but why is it different" posting tactic, you obviously have troubles with subtle but meaningful differences though so I won't hold it against you

You want facing rules, enormous complexity, little depth. If the entire goal of every tactic you want to see on the table is "get to the side of the unit, they are weaker there" your " tactics" become stagnant very quickly.

You asked me directly once for a battlereport, then later said you were still waiting. That's twice.

You don't like the fact that the rules you prefer aren't in the game, that's fine, don't play it. But you pretending that the game is shallow and has basic, simple tactics despite the FACT that there are a huge number of decisions needed to be made based on rules interaction, area buffs, situational bonuses from utilising terrain and special rules within the warscroll, how the enemy has deployed their unit compared to your own, and even the choices made on allocation of attacks within the unit to generate better battleshock results is simply being stubborn.

I ask the same question because I keep getting the same answer. You not liking the way they chose to change gameplay doesn't make the gameplay any less deep and tactical than it was before.

As an example from my mageknight days, if a model came within your back arc, you got a free spin unless they had a special rule denying it. Because trained warriors DO NOT STAND STILL WHEN AN ENEMY HAS CLOSED IN ON THEM. If you really want to flank someone, you need to hit them from both sides to keep them from forming an effective offense. Age of sigmar gives that to you by letting you pile on more wounds, deny escape routes, and force d visions on model placement and target prioritization.

But we'll just keep pretending that flanking means nothing in the system and give it grief because reasons.

Oh look, realism argument. Well you argued before that there's no reason for phalanx to have vulnerable sides and rear so not sure if you're the person to judge it. I also love archers trained to a point that they never hit their own when shooting into the moshpit not to mention can shoot from the middle of one. Realism arguments have no place in AoS discussion unless you want to bash it.

I don't think that was me, though not sure. Not sure why it is that hard to find a bat rep with that decesive flank charge, even I think that although it's rare, unreliable and mostly irrelevant to game outcome, it still can happen and matter.

As for facing, it's not only about flank charges but also movement and attack restrictions though feel free to ignore it as usual. I guess trained soldiers can run in one direction and then right away run the same distance in the same time but opposite direction, in formations. Especialy the famous flying inverted Ts, those guys.

Stubborn lol, pot meet kettle to say the least.

40k has the whole model representing exact soldier's position thing for 2 editions. I have yet to see anyone who played 3 games getting it wrong or coming up with some brilliant, suprising setup. It's obvious as in obvious obvious. Buffs and rules interactions, GW is famous for writing a lot of rules with little impact. LOTS OF DECISIONS BUT MAJORITY NO BRAINERS FACT CAPITAL LETTERS SO MORE FACT.

OK, I believe we have made all of our points. I am actually becoming agitated and appear to be aggitiating you as well.

You don't like it, I do. As the person above said, just because most people don't play the game with a tactical mindset doesn't mean there is a lack of tactics. And I believe I read from someone who does mock battles for fun that the archers in combat is a viable thing also.

We aren't going to agree with each other, I am sorry I have bothered you as much as I have. I look forward to our next topic of debate, it is good to put myself against someone who doesn't resort to name calling

Thank you, you are a worthy opponent.

Yes I was about to post the same to you, it's not worth it to be spiteful over this and lower the discussion level to jabs and one liners. Not that I don't pracice those heh, it's my modus operandi in fact but I try to adapt to my disputants, you're a polite poster and I also enjoyed the argument based discussion. Believe or not but I take all the arguments into consideration and will try the things mentioned here if not out of curiosity.

Yes I think we said everything, multiple times in fact. I think it's relatively shallow but not mindless you know as you can still outplay an opponent even on the basic things, the vast combination of armies, tables and deployments warrant that and the warscrolls or gaming the pile in, though not much imo, are still something. I play games with imo similar level of depth on PC and have fun though having them figured out to the bone, I think some additional mechanism would really improve the gameplay. It's also the fact that I expected a lot from from Games Workshop having a clean slate, it was really an opportunity to get things right imo plus it coinceided with what I see as significant deterioration of art quality in their books and I am really dissapointed in GWs decisions lately.

Also I agree that it's can be used to get wives into TT wargaming, btw congratulations to yours for handing you your ass. MIne did that to me in 40k but hey shallow game erm lol.

So yes apologies and I consider you worthy as well.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Yes I was about to post the same to you, it's not worth it to be spiteful over this and lower the discussion level to jabs and one liners. Not that I don't pracice those heh, it's my modus operandi in fact but I try to adapt to my disputants, you're a polite poster and I also enjoyed the argument based discussion. Believe or not but I take all the arguments into consideration and will try the things mentioned here if not out of curiosity.

Yes I think we said everything, multiple times in fact. I think it's relatively shallow but not mindless you know as you can still outplay an opponent even on the basic things, the vast combination of armies, tables and deployments warrant that and the warscrolls or gaming the pile in, though not much imo, are still something. I play games with imo similar level of depth on PC and have fun though having them figured out to the bone, I think some additional mechanism would really improve the gameplay. It's also the fact that I expected a lot from from Games Workshop having a clean slate, it was really an opportunity to get things right imo plus it coinceided with what I see as significant deterioration of art quality in their books and I am really dissapointed in GWs decisions lately.

Also I agree that it's can be used to get wives into TT wargaming, btw congratulations to yours for handing you your ass. MIne did that to me in 40k but hey shallow game erm lol.

So yes apologies and I consider you worthy as well.

My wife chose Malifaux because the aesthetic of the creepy Victorian pleased her. (I had wanted to get into but she gave me the excuse) She's more than willing to learn complex rules for a game she finds interesting.
Different people want different things from their games. Often times the same person wants different and contradictory things.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Different people want different things from their games. Often times the same person wants different and contradictory things.

This

 MWHistorian wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Yes I was about to post the same to you, it's not worth it to be spiteful over this and lower the discussion level to jabs and one liners. Not that I don't pracice those heh, it's my modus operandi in fact but I try to adapt to my disputants, you're a polite poster and I also enjoyed the argument based discussion. Believe or not but I take all the arguments into consideration and will try the things mentioned here if not out of curiosity.

Yes I think we said everything, multiple times in fact. I think it's relatively shallow but not mindless you know as you can still outplay an opponent even on the basic things, the vast combination of armies, tables and deployments warrant that and the warscrolls or gaming the pile in, though not much imo, are still something. I play games with imo similar level of depth on PC and have fun though having them figured out to the bone, I think some additional mechanism would really improve the gameplay. It's also the fact that I expected a lot from from Games Workshop having a clean slate, it was really an opportunity to get things right imo plus it coinceided with what I see as significant deterioration of art quality in their books and I am really dissapointed in GWs decisions lately.

Also I agree that it's can be used to get wives into TT wargaming, btw congratulations to yours for handing you your ass. MIne did that to me in 40k but hey shallow game erm lol.

So yes apologies and I consider you worthy as well.

My wife chose Malifaux because the aesthetic of the creepy Victorian pleased her. (I had wanted to get into but she gave me the excuse) She's more than willing to learn complex rules for a game she finds interesting.
Different people want different things from their games. Often times the same person wants different and contradictory things.

Well my wife plays Twighlight Struggle, Space Hulk, 40k with me and boadgames mainly Warrior Knights when we have guests and I ever decide to get her into fantasy wargame I will start with KoW. I'm quite sure that she would actualy hate AoS but she plays wargames already. I do in fact think that it sounds a bit condescending towards said wives to say that AoS is for them in particular like they were unable to learn something more complex but I was more about how having whfb minis already, it can be easily arranged at home and resolved quickly. TIme is often an issue and I for example have to threaten thaf I will order a prostitute or leave her for my friend's more gamey gf to get some bigger 3 hours 40k game and she still half hates it for taking the entire evening, I would probably get 10 times the games if it played faster. Another advantage is the sound of 4 pages of rules, it makes it appear casual and sth you can do for a break without much commitment. There are better quick games ofc but AoS might be good for introducing to the basic concepts of wargames with little effort. I would never reccomend it to someone not having minis already though, if you are to start fresh then yes find something you're interested in and start go for it right away, it's not rocket science we're talking about but all 12+ games anyway.

 Talys wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Different people want different things from their games. Often times the same person wants different and contradictory things.

This

Since when isn't different synonymous with bad and worse, because am feeling like we are talking here about some sort of bizzaro worlds.

Makumba wrote:

Since when isn't different synonymous with bad and worse, because am feeling like we are talking here about some sort of bizzaro worlds.

Most of the time actually.

Different is just that. Neither better or worse.

Really. You need to get out of your playgroup and play against some historical gamers or someone like talys who can actually show you other 'different' ways of playing ttg's that have real value.

I just want to point out....
In my own personal experiences of venturing to the stores in my area, I have noticed that every player who is excited about AOS, or who wants to play AOS is a player who has been labeled as cheesy.
Most of the people I have talked to casually in the stores who are into AOS are players who can’t get a 40k game because they are labeled as cheese players and people avoid them. I think this is why those players love AOS, no real rules so they can just come up with a crazy stupid list.
Now I know what people reading this are saying, "outrage, AOS players are not cheese" well, I just have to say I have not seen one player in my ventures who has what I would consider a balanced army.
I miss the old days of having a lot of units of troops, a unit of cavalry, and maybe some artillery or a giant monster.
But no, I have seen ZERO Age of Simpleminded players who even know how to spell balance.

My personal observations so far have been...

1) The day the game released a guy sold his greyknights to start playing ogres. When i asked why, his reasoning was that the game is based off of models and not points, so one ogre is comparable to one empire man, and then he asked if i wanted to play a game. HA, no thanks was my response, along with some complaining about how loose the rules sounded.

2) Walked into my normal store and noticed a guy with a fedora of all things to wear looking at chaos fantasy, I started a conversation, and turns out the guy is new to fantasy. He thinks, (and yes these were his words) "chaos warriors are useless, i am making a hoard of chaos spawns" that ended the topic for me real quick, and then i had to come up with an excuse to get away.

3) Went to the store, talked to the same guy in story #1, he wants to try to start a campaign of sorts, I got a bit excited as I love campaigns. The problem I had was that he wants to run the campaign and play in the campaign. After talking to him for 45min, come to find out he wants to start a campaign because he cant find anyone who wants to play against his army, so his grand plan is to get players new to the game who he is going to crush of course. I pointed out that his logic was flawed, and if he was to play in his campaign and run it, he should choose an army that is not good that he will loose with so that he can keep his players interested. His little brain could not comprehend what I was trying to explain, so of course its no news to me that his campaign flopped the second week when no one showed, its been 2 months and his campaign is very dead. Turns out people don’t want to play when you you make the rules and have a cheese army, go figure!
4) Walked into another store I used to venture too often, and a player I have seen a few times is pulling out 3 blood thirstiers, and 9 skull crushers, badly painted of course. He prompts me for a game, as im talking to him I keep looking to see what else he has, turns out that is his army. I don’t think I even bought anything from the store, I was still annoyed at the levels of cheese I saw.

I have more story’s or examples, and no I don’t need you quoting me and pointing out how great you are, or how much smarter you are.
As far as it goes for AOS, im never going to play a game, and I think that a lot of people see AOS the same why I do….
A, hate the rules, or lack of
B, all the players that talk about it on any of the sites or in stores have proven to me they are cheese
C, you can have the all the victory’s you want, ill stick with a game that takes skill and dosnt have people running to the local store to buy up all the monsters they can.

It's almost like removing all kinds of balance ENCOURAGES the WAAC mentality instead of somehow stopping it....

 GraywarTS wrote:
I just want to point out....
In my own personal experiences of venturing to the stores in my area, I have noticed that every player who is excited about AOS, or who wants to play AOS is a player who has been labeled as cheesy.
Most of the people I have talked to casually in the stores who are into AOS are players who can’t get a 40k game because they are labeled as cheese players and people avoid them. I think this is why those players love AOS, no real rules so they can just come up with a crazy stupid list.
Now I know what people reading this are saying, "outrage, AOS players are not cheese" well, I just have to say I have not seen one player in my ventures who has what I would consider a balanced army.
I miss the old days of having a lot of units of troops, a unit of cavalry, and maybe some artillery or a giant monster.
But no, I have seen ZERO Age of Simpleminded players who even know how to spell balance.

You know that as soon as you write stuff like that, most people interested in hearing a well-reasoned argument will stop reading your post, right? Is it really necessary?

 Mymearan wrote:

 GraywarTS wrote:

But no, I have seen ZERO Age of Simpleminded players who even know how to spell balance.

You know that as soon as you write stuff like that, most people interested in hearing a well-reasoned argument will stop reading your post, right? Is it really necessary?

Huh, I just had to check and make sure I wasn't in the Optimists Only thread. But you know, turns out we aren't

 Mymearan wrote:

 GraywarTS wrote:
I just want to point out....
In my own personal experiences of venturing to the stores in my area, I have noticed that every player who is excited about AOS, or who wants to play AOS is a player who has been labeled as cheesy.
Most of the people I have talked to casually in the stores who are into AOS are players who can’t get a 40k game because they are labeled as cheese players and people avoid them. I think this is why those players love AOS, no real rules so they can just come up with a crazy stupid list.
Now I know what people reading this are saying, "outrage, AOS players are not cheese" well, I just have to say I have not seen one player in my ventures who has what I would consider a balanced army.
I miss the old days of having a lot of units of troops, a unit of cavalry, and maybe some artillery or a giant monster.
But no, I have seen ZERO Age of Simpleminded players who even know how to spell balance.

You know that as soon as you write stuff like that, most people interested in hearing a well-reasoned argument will stop reading your post, right? Is it really necessary?

And if you bothered the read his post you know he doesn't care and just wanted to say how he see it.

 jonolikespie wrote:
It's almost like removing all kinds of balance ENCOURAGES the WAAC mentality instead of somehow stopping it....

I'm sure that everyone's experience and meta varies, but hat has not been my experience in my neck of the woods.

A constraint based system encourages players to push the rules to the limits. Removing the constraints forces players to find their own equilibrium and fun. Sure, if you live somewhere that everyone wants to play the most powerful armies that's just fine, *as long as both players want this*. In this case, it's just herohammer, which is what I like anyhow (mostly because the only fantasy models I want to paint are the super premium ones).

Where the system dies is when HALF the players want superpowerful armies, and the other half wants to play grunts. OR when half the players want to list for advantage and the other half wants to list for fluff or fun. But that's no different than Magic: A super deck against a for-fun favorite pretty cards deck makes for a lousy game. In the end, people in AoS need to find like-minded opponents. Which is no different than any other game.

In the small number of people I've seen really take to AoS (couple dozen or so), it isn't the supercheese crowd, nor the super-competitive crowd. About half seem to like Sigmarites, a big chunk enjoy the not-very-many core rules aspect, some enjoy the campaign booms, and a couple are Fantasy Battle converts.

The real crux of it long term though, is that I'm not sure many of these people will buy a lot of models. Books, maybe, but most of these players don't seem like they want to ever grow into multi-hundreds of model collections that GW loves.

 Talys wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
It's almost like removing all kinds of balance ENCOURAGES the WAAC mentality instead of somehow stopping it....

I'm sure that everyone's experience and meta varies, but hat has not been my experience in my neck of the woods.

A constraint based system encourages players to push the rules to the limits. Removing the constraints forces players to find their own equilibrium and fun. Sure, if you live somewhere that everyone wants to play the most powerful armies that's just fine, *as long as both players want this*. In this case, it's just herohammer, which is what I like anyhow (mostly because the only fantasy models I want to paint are the super premium ones).

Where the system dies is when HALF the players want superpowerful armies, and the other half wants to play grunts. OR when half the players want to list for advantage and the other half wants to list for fluff or fun. But that's no different than Magic: A super deck against a for-fun favorite pretty cards deck makes for a lousy game. In the end, people in AoS need to find like-minded opponents. Which is no different than any other game.

In the small number of people I've seen really take to AoS (couple dozen or so), it isn't the supercheese crowd, nor the super-competitive crowd. About half seem to like Sigmarites, a big chunk enjoy the not-very-many core rules aspect, some enjoy the campaign booms, and a couple are Fantasy Battle converts.

The real crux of it long term though, is that I'm not sure many of these people will buy a lot of models. Books, maybe, but most of these players don't seem like they want to ever grow into multi-hundreds of model collections that GW loves.

This has been my experience as well. I've seen no interest from WAAC players, although to be fair, I'm not sure we have any that would fit that description in our group. I guess they'd be more common at an FLGS? So far I'm the only player buying any of the new stuff, the others already have one or more big WHFB armies and have no need for another one. It'll be very interesting to see what happens when the old races start getting redone. Will these people buy those models? I don't know.

The evidence of the recent AoS weekend in Nottingham is that most people used moderate armies but a few used what could be called cheesy armies, but they did not seem to be TFG kind of people.

As far as this means anything it is that WAAC gamers are a small minority, but that has always been true in 40K as well.

I don't see it as a major benefit or failing of AoS. It is an aspect of human psychology rather than a specific game.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't see it as a major benefit or failing of AoS. It is an aspect of human psychology rather than a specific game.

The long term ramification is whether the people who like cheesy armies will exist in sufficient numbers to play each other in a non-event setting.

In a point game system, there is always the excuse that "I'm allowed to play this because it's 1500 points". In a setting where you aren't assigned, but rather choose an opponent, if someone brings a cheesy army, they're either punished for it (by the non-cheese guy wanting to field more stuff) or they don't get a game. Of course, you get people in 40k who refuse to play Decurion, wave serpents, scatterbikes, gladius, etc. -- but I would say that this *rarely* happens. There is the sense that, "at 1850 points the army is okay", so in a pickup setting, people generally bring the best they can muster; you don't see that many people who bring just what they want to bring. If you bring a Decurion, chances are you'll have a play partner on a game night, and odds are, you'll fare well.

I don't think there are all that many people who like cheesy armies, and I don't think they are confined to playing in tournaments.

What on earth makes you think that?

The fact that reports of GTs, weekend campaigns and so on show that most of the players come with pretty mediocre lists.

The number of people with the latest ubber codex min-max list is usually relatively small, but it gets noticed because the ubber lists win more often than their proportion would justify, because they are ubber.

This is also my personal experience, for what that is worth.

So I don't believe the majority of players are out to win at all costs by min-maxing their army. Most people want a fair game with 'fluffy' armies that they picked because they liked the models or whatever.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

So I don't believe the majority of players are out to win at all costs by min-maxing their army. Most people want a fair game with 'fluffy' armies that they picked because they liked the models or whatever.

I'm backing this thought.

I'm playing a lot of other games outside of GW. It appears you have the same kind of diversity in players in those as well; some players who like to play "fluffy", other who rather like to paint and not thinking much about the rules and some as well who play competitive (with a small part of them being highly competitive, near "TFG" stereotype).

It's just a matter of human psychology. It has nothing to do with the rules or the company. Some games may favor some kind of players, but in the end a player play whatever he wants however he wants, as long as he find someone to play with or against and agree with that.

So, when GW fans say AoS is only played by "fun" players, this is just an illusion. Optimizers are still here, and the fact there are no points in the core rules doesn't mean they can't do that anymore. They just do it in another way.

Yes I never quite understood the voices saying how AoS is going to fix the playerbase by getting rid of "black hearted jocks rampaging the community for years". If enough players play AoS, the "tfgs" will come anyway and if anything, they will thrive in the environment the rules create.

GraywarTS wrote:
I have more story’s or examples, and no I don’t need you quoting me and pointing out how great you are, or how much smarter you are.

Hilarious, thanks for the laugh.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Yes I never quite understood the voices saying how AoS is going to fix the playerbase by getting rid of "black hearted jocks rampaging the community for years". If enough players play AoS, the "tfgs" will come anyway and if anything, they will thrive in the environment the rules create.

...
...

It is a way to put a positive spin on not having a points system.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

It is a way to put a positive spin on not having a points system.

Hm, I would rather say it's a way to stigmatize those who regret WFB rules. That's the biggest "argument" so far from AoS White Knights; WFB players were all "TFG" players who only wanted to show their victory on the corpses of their hapless opponents. And point cost system was the root of all Evil in favor of that behavior.

Yeah, right. Last event in Nottingham showed that competition didn't stop in AoS. Rules may change, players stay the same. No reason an optimizer still faithful to GW games would stop optimizing with their GW armies in AoS as well.

That's certainly not an "argument" I've heard from anyone. No one has said competition would stop with AoS. Some people have said that AoS is less conducive to being TFG because lack of points means you can't hide behind a system, and thus stronger social contracts are required to play RAW. Which is true even if I personally don't think it matters much. TFG will always TFG, and I won't play him no matter the game. Luckily pick-up games don't exist here, so I don't have to worry about it. And who are these "white knights"? Are they simply people who enjoy AoS? If so, you should probably find another less derogatory label for them. No reason to lower ourselves to categorizing everyone as either a "white knight" or a "hater". How about the commonly accepted "fans"?

Gonna play devil's advocate here.

If GW had come out with a point system (instead of their no point system experiment) everyone would just be arguing instead with how such and such is overcosted, or cheesy, or whatever.

By putting the balance in the hands of the players, it is much more likely that a game will actually be balanced because both players are included in what they both believe is balanced.

When has the 40k point system actually led to balanced armies? Never

I played one game of AOS - we went with 75 wounds as a kind of balancer - and the game ended with me killing 95% of his models, and him killing 93% of mine - it was probobly the most balanced game I had ever played of any system.

Back in the day I used to play battletech mini game (early 90s / late 80s) and there was no such thing as points and you did the same thing, make somewhat balanced armies before you started and then just played it out.

Yep I played Battletech too (still do) and I remember when there were really no points. We used tonnage. But if you play BT you know that tonnage is not a good metric for balance because some mechs under or over perform.

Using tonnage is like AoS players using wounds for balance.

auticus wrote:
Yep I played Battletech too (still do) and I remember when there were really no points. We used tonnage. But if you play BT you know that tonnage is not a good metric for balance because some mechs under or over perform.

Using tonnage is like AoS players using wounds for balance.

True, I remember using tonnage also.

But even if the armies were completely and utterly equal (like chess) people would still argue that going first/second has the advantage (like they do in chess)

 chaosmarauder wrote:

By putting the balance in the hands of the players, it is much more likely that a game will actually be balanced because both players are included in what they both believe is balanced.

It requires social contract. And this stops the second I say 'no' to you. For any real, imagined, or arbitrary reasons. You might think x is perfectly fine, and I don't. Or vice versa.

 chaosmarauder wrote:

When has the 40k point system actually led to balanced armies? Never

Red herring. And you know it. Points systems are fine, when they're built right. Gw don't really care and are not a very good example to use if your argument is 'look, points don't work'. they're not the only company out there. See Corvus belli, wyrd and privateer press for examples. Far better use of points systems as part of their toolsets to create balanced armies and balanced games

 chaosmarauder wrote:


I played one game of AOS - we went with 75 wounds as a kind of balancer - and the game ended with me killing 95% of his models, and him killing 93% of mine - it was probobly the most balanced game I had ever played of any system.

Playing devils advocate for a moment - all you're just replacing a points limit with another arbitrary limit (essentially points by another name) that can be just as easily abused and mishandled. Take, for example seventy five peasants versus seventy five armoured cavalry Knights. You can make it work, but it requires a huge amount of extra input in scenario design etc to balance it out because the wound cap on its own simpky won't cut it.

For what it's worth I am sympathetic to aos. I play other games like flames of war in a similar fashion - no use of points, Us as players in the driving seat rather than 'official organised play', a focus on homebrew rather than 'out of the box' scenario etc. I just acknowledge its limitations. It's fine if you can eyeball things to a reasonable degree, and it's fine when you have likeminded opponents that you can communicate with and compromise with to make interesting games. But it's very easy to break down at the same time.

I think that in tournaments - you are going to use one of those finely tuned comp systems that people are coming up with these days.

For day to day play against a random person - I'm thinking that number of wounds is just as balanced as using 40ks points system. And if you start with saying its a 'casual game' then any reasonable person isnt going to use those wounds to spam nagash or elite troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if you think about it, even with 40ks point system, all local LGS have come up with different house rules anyway - certain points, no lords of war, no flyers, or whatever

Its not unreasonable to say "we play 100 wound games here and you have to take 3 basic troops and no more than 3 heroes/monsters" or something similar

 chaosmarauder wrote:
I think that in tournaments - you are going to use one of those finely tuned comp systems that people are coming up with these days.

For day to day play against a random person - I'm thinking that number of wounds is just as balanced as using 40ks points system. And if you start with saying its a 'casual game' then any reasonable person isnt going to use those wounds to spam nagash or elite troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if you think about it, even with 40ks point system, all local LGS have come up with different house rules anyway - certain points, no lords of war, no flyers, or whatever

Its not unreasonable to say "we play 100 wound games here and you have to take 3 basic troops and no more than 3 heroes/monsters" or something similar

Finely tuned, that is funny. Like pointed out above you need to get out of the GW mind set. Other game don't have these issues.

Noir wrote:
Finely tuned, that is funny. Like pointed out above you need to get out of the GW mind set. Other game don't have these issues.

Magic the gathering - no 2 decks are balanced (yes even if both players have to have more than 60 cards and no more than 4 of any kind)
Hordes/Warmachine - 90% of any army is already made for you - if you go outside of what makes sense you will get stomped
Chess - whoever goes first has the advantage
Any mmorpg/moba - constant rebalancing of abilities

There will always be balancing issues - what needs to change is the attitudes of players

The WAAC players need to tone it down a little
The casual players need to read a little about tactics and up their game a little

A little competition is a good thing
No competition is boring and too much competitive spirit creates hostility

Like my wife - she is way way too competitive about everything

Noir wrote:


Finely tuned, that is funny. Like pointed out above you need to get out of the GW mind set. Other game don't have these issues.

EVERY game has these issues. Every single one. It really just comes down to whether you enjoy the game enough to overlook them.

chaosmarauder made a good post above. If you do not follow "standards" during list construction you can absolutely get destroyed in even a "casual" game purely because of what you brought to the table. 40k is ripe with examples of imbalance despite its point system, but if you want to shift gears away from GW: Malifaux and Warmachine crews are depressingly cookie-cutter (I mean, there is even a recommended SS cache for most Malifaux crews... come on now). Any deviation leads to lop-sided games. I spent far too long trying to be "unique" with my Viks before realizing, despite all the henchmen out there (e.g., Hans, Sue) I'm just going to use a pair of convict gunslingers. Don't even get me started on how much having oathkeeper changes games... let alone the other "auto-take" upgrades. (The notion of an anything being an "auto-take" in a balanced system exposes a rather large inherent flaw in that system...) That is not to say I don't have fun playing those games, but it is ludicrous to believe they are any more or less issue-free.

Point systems merely provide an illusion of choice and balance. As soon as you deviate from whatever has been optimized for that system you no longer are guaranteed "balanced" games. Edit, and frankly, in many cases even just playing optimized lists against each other you will have very one-sided games. Bottom-line, every system has issues, you (the reader) just overlook and/or are willing to accept and rationalize the ones in your favorite system.

 chaosmarauder wrote:

Noir wrote:
Finely tuned, that is funny. Like pointed out above you need to get out of the GW mind set. Other game don't have these issues.

Magic the gathering - no 2 decks are balanced (yes even if both players have to have more than 60 cards and no more than 4 of any kind)
...

The point of MtG is to create a deck that is better than your opponent's one. Why else trade for cards to get the best ones and so on?

 chaosmarauder wrote:
I think that in tournaments - you are going to use one of those finely tuned comp systems that people are coming up with these days.

'One of those' being the operative word. There is no central consensus or anything resembling a 'standard' set of tourney comp systems. That is a huge barrier to organised play.

 chaosmarauder wrote:

For day to day play against a random person - I'm thinking that number of wounds is just as balanced as using 40ks points system. And if you start with saying its a 'casual game' then any reasonable person isnt going to use those wounds to spam nagash or elite troops.

Define 'casual'. Define 'day to day play'.

But my seventy five knights on horses are all very well painted and I spent hours converting each and every one. Why shouldn't I be allowed to play it? Who are you to say thst I'm not being 'reasonable'? As far as I'm concerned it's just as 'fair', just as 'reasonable' and I am just as justified in fielding it as anyone else fielding any other army. You are essentially trying to dictate to me 'how I should be playing' based on your subjective standards of what is 'fair' and 'reasonable'. Unless your goal is enforcement of subjective standards by social pressure, and social exclusion, plus passive aggressive name calling - I call this bullying. This does not work. All it does is breed in resentment and ultimately fracture the community.

 chaosmarauder wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if you think about it, even with 40ks point system, all local LGS have come up with different house rules anyway - certain points, no lords of war, no flyers, or whatever

Its not unreasonable to say "we play 100 wound games here and you have to take 3 basic troops and no more than 3 heroes/monsters" or something similar

And this falls down the second the guy answers with 'Where I'm from we play completely differently'. So you're essentially saying 'play my way or get out'.

 chaosmarauder wrote:

Hordes/Warmachine - 90% of any army is already made for you - if you go outside of what makes sense you will get stomped

Until someone like Jamie p wins a masters with kossites in his army. Oh wait - he already did that. Saying 90% of the army is already made for you tells me one thing - the player is uncreative. Nothing more. Warmahordes isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but it's nothing like you claim. Good use of points and other structural components like multiple lists, character restrictions, time restrictions, character limits, adr, steamroller scenarios go a long way towards opening up the playing field.

The most enjoyable games I have had - and this goes for many different competative games and systems - is when I can plainly see that my opponent has a worse team/army/deck than me and I tone down mine to match.

It is even sweeter, if I know I am running an underdog army and manage to still give my opponent a bloody nose or beat them.

And games like that with like minded opponents are the best, and honestly the majority of gamers I have come across think the same way.

A yes the WM/H is netlisting or you lose. Despite results saying different.

And no not every game has this problem, I don't have to decide if my list or the others guy list is OP, then have to take about what is allowed. We can take what we want knowing no one will curb stomp the other guy, except for the player skill factor or bad luck. You know games where if I buy a model for it I can use it. Without you know house rules.

Most games have a points based system which allows anyone to turn up with what is a reasonable army and play against the same points value. This should lead to a fair game based then on the comparative skills of the players involved. The obvious problem that AoS has is that now Player A can turn up with a Stormcast Eternals army using just what he got in the starter box and supposedly have a fair game against Player B whose list is equivalent to 1850pts under old WFB. Player B could just choose not to use most of his stuff but he doesn't have/want to and Player A is left with an unwinnable game. There in lies the only real issue with AoS.

I know that and you all know that. So why is it so difficult to understand that AoS needs a balance mechanic? Locally I am pushing for a 60-100 wound cap in our organised games. I have also had to try and balance other issues which has been difficult with differing points of view. In the end I've had to go with the best of both worlds and if some players don't like it, well yes, tough. You aren't going to please everyone. But that is just our organised play leagues or day events. If someone was to come from out of town to play a friendly they can play how they want with their opponent.

I've played a few games borrowing a friend's Wood Aelf's while I get my Undead sorted. Mainly against Ogres utilizing different builds and a 60 wounds cap coupled with a 2 limit on monsters does seem to work. Other groups are finding that a wound limit doesn't work for them. I find that the fan created competition points that some have invented don't work for me. GW won't be putting out any balancing systems and it's down to us the players to do it for them based upon our individual needs.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Gonna play devil's advocate here.

If GW had come out with a point system (instead of their no point system experiment) everyone would just be arguing instead with how such and such is overcosted, or cheesy, or whatever.

By putting the balance in the hands of the players, it is much more likely that a game will actually be balanced because both players are included in what they both believe is balanced.

When has the 40k point system actually led to balanced armies? Never

I played one game of AOS - we went with 75 wounds as a kind of balancer - and the game ended with me killing 95% of his models, and him killing 93% of mine - it was probobly the most balanced game I had ever played of any system.

Back in the day I used to play battletech mini game (early 90s / late 80s) and there was no such thing as points and you did the same thing, make somewhat balanced armies before you started and then just played it out.

40k, a game where point costs are not adjusted even with an edition change, used as an example of point system not working.

Then a percentage of kills from a single game used as proof that it was balanced.

You are on fire.

The people who haven't played AoS make it sound so complicated. It's not difficult to balance. It's not difficult to figure out tournament rules. Fine if you don't like the game, but the theory-ing is irrelevant.

Edit: Back to pickup basketball analogy. People have different sized basketball nets. Some are taller. Some are in driveways. Some you have a full court. Some courts have cracks in the ground. How can you ever figure out how to play with all these differing factors! Even on the tournament level, the NBA has a different ruleset to other professional leagues. How ever can we keep everything straight.

 BlackLobster wrote:
Most games have a points based system which allows anyone to turn up with what is a reasonable army and play against the same points value. This should lead to a fair game based then on the comparative skills of the players involved. The obvious problem that AoS has is that now Player A can turn up with a Stormcast Eternals army using just what he got in the starter box and supposedly have a fair game against Player B whose list is equivalent to 1850pts under old WFB. Player B could just choose not to use most of his stuff but he doesn't have/want to and Player A is left with an unwinnable game. There in lies the only real issue with AoS.

I know that and you all know that. So why is it so difficult to understand that AoS needs a balance mechanic? Locally I am pushing for a 60-100 wound cap in our organised games. I have also had to try and balance other issues which has been difficult with differing points of view. In the end I've had to go with the best of both worlds and if some players don't like it, well yes, tough. You aren't going to please everyone. But that is just our organised play leagues or day events. If someone was to come from out of town to play a friendly they can play how they want with their opponent.

I've played a few games borrowing a friend's Wood Aelf's while I get my Undead sorted. Mainly against Ogres utilizing different builds and a 60 wounds cap coupled with a 2 limit on monsters does seem to work. Other groups are finding that a wound limit doesn't work for them. I find that the fan created competition points that some have invented don't work for me. GW won't be putting out any balancing systems and it's down to us the players to do it for them based upon our individual needs.

Sure they do but we are responding to someone saying 40k point and using wound in AOS is just as balanced.

Then goes on to talk about having to in 40k decide if flyers and etc. Are allowed. Then claiming every game has this problem. Which is just wrong.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Yes I never quite understood the voices saying how AoS is going to fix the playerbase by getting rid of "black hearted jocks rampaging the community for years". If enough players play AoS, the "tfgs" will come anyway and if anything, they will thrive in the environment the rules create.

...
...

It is a way to put a positive spin on not having a points system.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Yes, that was the argument, that the points system facilitated the use of cheesy lists by creating a false impression of fairness and validated the cheesemonger who could say he was simply playing by the rules.

Thus the absence of points in AoS would have the opposite effect, however it hasn't.

My own view, expressed at the time, is that a non-balanced system can be gamed if people want to game it.

To be clear, most of the people at the AoS Weekend apparently did not bring cheesy armies, so obviously people did not want to game the system all that much. However, that is largely true in 40K as well.

I'll respond to your current post as well as the post from the other thread at the same time if that's ok.

You are very clearly missing the point of what people were getting at, which Mymearan pretty much just covered. The issue that happens with 40k which is less likely to happen with AoS, is two people hearing a point number, both making lists, and then one list severely outperforms the other because they are either totally different power levels or are fundamentally incompatible.

You say that people bringing highly competitive lists to casual games doesn't happen often and I don't disagree, the bigger problem is when two people think they're bringing two even lists that absolutely aren't. This happened to two of my friends who play casual Imperial vs Tau games often. The first couple of games they played (they started just before AdMech) were incredibly one-sided in the favor of the Tau against Space Marines. After that the SM bought some newly released AdMech which did significantly better against the Tau, after which the Tau player added a riptide (he likes mech suits and wanted a riptide since he started) which pushed it back into his favor. Thus as a result the Admech player bought a Knight to match the Tau player's overall higher point (he removed stuff to field the riptide) army, and tabled him by turn 3 two games in a row. This led two the Tau player asking permission to proxy a Y'varnah which together with his riptide let him shoot the Admech player off the table by turn 3. Neither was happy with the other.

The problem with 40k is not just some instances of spotty pointing, but the massive diversity present within the rules. You can run infantry hordes, tank companies, all walker forces, "spellcasters", elite MSU, shooting focused armies, melee focused armies, the list goes on... It is basically impossible to balance all of these different units and play styles while still allowing flexibility in army building. If GW did balance an entire codex on one or two play styles then it would force everything into cookie cutter builds or leading to certain units not even being made because they don't fit the archetype. This is one of the reasons that 30k is viewed as being so much better balanced, because how can it not be when outside of 2-3 special units and a few commander variants, everyone is pulling from the same pool of units.

AoS, rules as written, asks that rather than just shuffling together X number of points you instead take a look at what each of you brought and decide on an appropriate game from there. Sure you can do that in any game but AoS asks you to do this from the start, so if someone does bring something ludicrously good then that dialogue of "hey I only have this stuff, I feel this might be a little one sided because of X" is already open.

All the situations that people keep inventing of how some guy can still absolutely staunchly refuse to change his list are manufactured arguments, and it reflects more poorly on the community than it does AoS. If I ask someone to play a game and he asks me to take something out but I disagree, I'd politely and briefly explain why I disagree. If he still disagrees then I'll take it out and play. If it makes for a balanced game then I'll have gathered a better grasp of the system. If its totally one-sided and I play them with the same lists again, then I'll use that as a case to field what I originally wanted. If for whatever reason they refuse, in spite of last game, I simply won't play them and cite them crushing me last time if I ask why.

In reality its really no different from two people showing up to play a casual 1000pt game, and one of them bringing a bare bones Tau commander, two bare firewarrior squads, and a Taun'ar Supremacy Armor. Most people would seriously question the fairness of that army, and if the player refused to use something else then they likely wouldn't see many games. Again, the one advantage of no points is it stops people from using them as a shield for refusing to actually evaluate armies, making the "2015 Eldar" issue nonexistant. It is absolutely much easier to convince someone to remove something on the basis of it being unfair when there's no illusion of points to obscure the issue.

Sarouan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

It is a way to put a positive spin on not having a points system.

Hm, I would rather say it's a way to stigmatize those who regret WFB rules. That's the biggest "argument" so far from AoS White Knights; WFB players were all "TFG" players who only wanted to show their victory on the corpses of their hapless opponents. And point cost system was the root of all Evil in favor of that behavior.

Yeah, right. Last event in Nottingham showed that competition didn't stop in AoS. Rules may change, players stay the same. No reason an optimizer still faithful to GW games would stop optimizing with their GW armies in AoS as well.

Oh so because people enjoy AoS and defend the reasons why they like it, they're "White Knights"? Do you even know what white knight means? I've never denied that GW makes mistakes or could do things better, just because my or other fans' list of grievances is different than yours doesn't make us some sort of shills. Also, I don't defend AoS or 40k because they are GW games, I defend them because I find them enjoyable to play.

By your definition of the term then shouldn't every jilted GW-ex who posts comments about how others should switch to Malifaux/WMH/Infinity/etc also be called a White Knight? Because honestly I find their insistence that I should drop a system I enjoy simply because of a few issues that rarely effect me to be pretty obnoxious.

Noir wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:
I think that in tournaments - you are going to use one of those finely tuned comp systems that people are coming up with these days.

For day to day play against a random person - I'm thinking that number of wounds is just as balanced as using 40ks points system. And if you start with saying its a 'casual game' then any reasonable person isnt going to use those wounds to spam nagash or elite troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if you think about it, even with 40ks point system, all local LGS have come up with different house rules anyway - certain points, no lords of war, no flyers, or whatever

Its not unreasonable to say "we play 100 wound games here and you have to take 3 basic troops and no more than 3 heroes/monsters" or something similar

Finely tuned, that is funny. Like pointed out above you need to get out of the GW mind set. Other game don't have these issues.

Other games aren't AoS or 40k. Other games don't have the same amount of unit diversity or probably misguided adherence to some bizarre caricature of the lore that AoS and 40k have. And that's why me and my friends don't play those other games. I field Electro Priests despite how garbage they are because I enjoy the fluff, adore the models, and have fun watching them try to do things regardless.

If you want tight balance, cheaper models, or a more consistent combat scale then those games exist for you to play.

Games Workshop doesn't have to make them, and I find it hilarious how many people think they should.

Seriously why do any of you spend so much time antagonizing fans of GW games if you apparently don't trust their judgement, hate their business model, and don't even like their games? Not every game needs to or even should cater to just your opinion.

Seriously 40k. Could you people stop using it as an example, it's backwards.

Yes you can balance a massively diverse game, especialy when core ruleset is a simpleton like 40k. You can add spam taxes, terrain guidelines or a price for adding/ removing terrain. Yes there will be problems but nothing close to what we have now, all it would take is point cost for everything released separately as a sheet with each codex or when there's a need and utilising community feedback. Or AoS, you have free warscrolls that you download, it just begs for a balancing attempt on GW side.

It wouldn't be perfect but it's not about achieving perfection. It's about units being viable in given contexts. That a unit will be better in one list than the other comes from rps nature of the game and is natural, it's not imbalance. Imbalance is when the unit is never taken or an auto take just because of skewed point cost.

Also just like you can pretend that it's all ok because you are within points limit in 40k, you can use the grey area when eyeballing armies to gain advantage in AoS.

Jack Flask wrote:

Seriously why do any of you spend so much time antagonizing fans of GW games if you apparently don't trust their judgement, hate their business model, and don't even like their games? Not every game needs to or even should cater to just your opinion.

Because once upon a time I did trust their judgement, didn't hate their business model, and loved their games.
And as a customer I feel entitled to post my opinion of anything or anything they do on the appropriate online forums.

I think very few people are so naive or unperceptive as to imagine that 40K points offer a truly balanced game. GW haven't said this themselves since 5th edition, and you certainly can't play many games before you see examples of complete lack of balance.

The same obviously applies to AoS, since it does not have an identifiable balance mechanism other than wounds or model count, both of which clearly are at best crude.

Re why people spend so much time "antagonizing fans" (? just discussing/ voicing opinions maybe?) here. It doesn't help that the company hilariously fails on so many fronts, no wonder it attracts attention imo. A clown on the street attracts attention too.

But I love their plastics, I drool over them tbh when getting the sprues out of the box. The problem is, there are no anouncments, release dates anything from this crap company also some things are limited ie campaign boxes and I have to hang around the forums and blogs to keep up, especialy now when models can be discontinued and I want to finish my armies or maybe buy into LotR before it's gone. It's only natural that reading the stuff you want to comment on it so no matter how much one would like to paint me as some Gargamel esque villain, it will be bs as it's the company itself creating those situations.

Great to see that attempts on pushing the blame on critics are going strong btw. Somehow other games don't attract that much disdain, must be something wrong with people. Logic ftw.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2015/09/30
Seemed appropriate...

Played a game last night, Stormcast V Stormcast.
I was outnumbered by about 20% on model count, even more on wounds.

I won because I played the scenario, and this has been the case with every game I've played, win or lose.
Model/wound/whatever count obviously have an effect on the game, but the winner is normally the player who plays the scenario.

Obviously for a lot of people balance is an issue, but from my experience if you stick to scenarios it rarely seems to have as marked an effect as people think. I actively discourage my opponents from 'toning down' their army to match mine, and with one exception in the games I have lost Ibwas able to identify at least one thing I did 'wrong' that lost me the game, rather than my opponent having more stuff than me.

Your view may vary.

Oh, not really. Sure, there are people who have a grudge against GW, but not all critics feel that way. Playing the scenario is fine, but it depends from the scenario. Also, if you play against a clever opponent, he will also play the scenario but with advantages of his numbers. There are limits of what you can do by taking a lot less than your opponent, unless you play a specific scenario made for it.

But that means making house-made rules. Again.


About balance, it's an old debate. Honestly, I'm talking more about tools given to the players so that they can have an easier way to get "an interesting game". GW's view with AoS is interesting, by giving all the power to players. The double edge is that if it's left entirely to players, then they will more likely use their own "house made" rules so that games are more suited to their style.

That makes things complicated when they want to play with someone not already in their game circle and used to it. It thus takes more time to get the balance right and have an interesting game.

Danger is that players just stay in their comfort zone and don't try to play with "strangers" - like in tournaments or just at the store. They wouldn't take the risk to "lose their time" with someone who can be a "TFG" in disguise or something.

And that's an argument I already read on this forum.

Point cost systems have the advantage to be in the core rules, so that's already a tool to "make something more or less balanced". The trouble is that it has to be well done and reviewed regularly. GW totally sucks at that, because they don't really put their mind into game rules (especially now). That's not their purpose, after all. To be frank, I would say they should call themselves "Warhammer Collectors". It's much closer to the truth, IMHO.


AoS is a fine game if you don't play it seriously - I mean, about rules. You just need to agree with your opponent a bit more than usual in comparison to others games more "strict" on rule writing, that's all. The main difference is that in those games, you can also make your own scenarios and house-made rules if you wish so...but you're not forced to do it if you want to play "pick up games".

 Sarouan wrote:
Oh, not really. Sure, there are people who have a grudge against GW, but not all critics feel that way. Playing the scenario is fine, but it depends from the scenario. Also, if you play against a clever opponent, he will also play the scenario but with advantages of his numbers. There are limits of what you can do by taking a lot less than your opponent, unless you play a specific scenario made for it.

But that means making house-made rules. Again.


About balance, it's an old debate. Honestly, I'm talking more about tools given to the players so that they can have an easier way to get "an interesting game". GW's view with AoS is interesting, by giving all the power to players. The double edge is that if it's left entirely to players, then they will more likely use their own "house made" rules so that games are more suited to their style.

That makes things complicated when they want to play with someone not already in their game circle and used to it. It thus takes more time to get the balance right and have an interesting game.

Danger is that players just stay in their comfort zone and don't try to play with "strangers" - like in tournaments or just at the store. They wouldn't take the risk to "lose their time" with someone who can be a "TFG" in disguise or something.

And that's an argument I already read on this forum.

Point cost systems have the advantage to be in the core rules, so that's already a tool to "make something more or less balanced". The trouble is that it has to be well done and reviewed regularly. GW totally sucks at that, because they don't really put their mind into game rules (especially now). That's not their purpose, after all. To be frank, I would say they should call themselves "Warhammer Collectors". It's much closer to the truth, IMHO.


AoS is a fine game if you don't play it seriously - I mean, about rules. You just need to agree with your opponent a bit more than usual in comparison to others games more "strict" on rule writing, that's all. The main difference is that in those games, you can also make your own scenarios and house-made rules if you wish so...but you're not forced to do it if you want to play "pick up games".

Exalted. Agreed with you entirely.

Jack Flask wrote:

The problem with 40k is not just some instances of spotty pointing, but the massive diversity present within the rules. You can run infantry hordes, tank companies, all walker forces, "spellcasters", elite MSU, shooting focused armies, melee focused armies, the list goes on... It is basically impossible to balance all of these different units and play styles while still allowing flexibility in army building. If GW did balance an entire codex on one or two play styles then it would force everything into cookie cutter builds or leading to certain units not even being made because they don't fit the archetype. This is one of the reasons that 30k is viewed as being so much better balanced, because how can it not be when outside of 2-3 special units and a few commander variants, everyone is pulling from the same pool of units.

In warmachine, I can do precisely that. I can run infantry hordes, massed armour/walkers, heavy or light magic, elite builds, shorty, melee etc. and it's far more balanced. It's not 'impossible' to do this and still allow flexibility. Let's be clear too - balanced does not mean homogenous, which is your second point.

Jack Flask wrote:

All the situations that people keep inventing of how some guy can still absolutely staunchly refuse to change his list are manufactured arguments, and it reflects more poorly on the community than it does AoS. If I ask someone to play a game and he asks me to take something out but I disagree, I'd politely and briefly explain why I disagree. If he still disagrees then I'll take it out and play. If it makes for a balanced game then I'll have gathered a better grasp of the system. If its totally one-sided and I play them with the same lists again, then I'll use that as a case to field what I originally wanted. If for whatever reason they refuse, in spite of last game, I simply won't play them and cite them crushing me last time if I ask why.

It's not manufactured. Different people with different play styles and groups with different outcomes wanting different things from the game. Compromise on what to take can work with like minded folks familiar with each other and when you have time to organise and build these scenarios, but it's difficult for pugs. Choosing not to play someone has its own consequences - in a small, niche hobby, you risk fracturing and dividing it further, and not everyone has the luxury of picking their opponents from a huge list of potential players. I am fine with building interesting scenarios with appropriate forces and objectives, but part of me is quite against the idea of someone else telling me how I should select and play my army. Aos revolves hugely around this. As I said. It's fine with mates, but you need to be honest and accept its limitations.

Jack Flask wrote:

Other games aren't AoS or 40k. Other games don't have the same amount of unit diversity or probably misguided adherence to some bizarre caricature of the lore that AoS and 40k have. And that's why me and my friends don't play those other games. I field Electro Priests despite how garbage they are because I enjoy the fluff, adore the models, and have fun watching them try to do things regardless.

That 'unit diversity' in 40k is a red herring to be fair. For all the potential options, very few of them are 'real'. Only a handful of builds ever really get played. You see more diversity in twenty 'real' valid options than ten thousand paper options of which only two or three ever see play. As to a misguided adherence to s bizarre caricature of the lore of getting games - pull your head out of the sand mate. Gw's lore doesn't deserve a free pass. A lot of it is juvenile, poorly written trash and bolter porn. Plenty other games have great lore. Privateer press lore is surprisingly excellent, as a first example. They've been writing their stuff for fifteen years now. And it's got great depth and character and is certainly not a knock of of 40k (give it a read - I genuinely recommend it), and 40k itself is nothing more than a generic fantasy setting with laser guns set in space.

Jack Flask wrote:

Seriously why do any of you spend so much time antagonizing fans of GW games if you apparently don't trust their judgement, hate their business model, and don't even like their games? Not every game needs to or even should cater to just your opinion.

Because people are allowed to have an opinion? Your Gw gsmes don't get a free pass where only people who agree with them get to post.

Deadnight wrote:

Jack Flask wrote:

Seriously why do any of you spend so much time antagonizing fans of GW games if you apparently don't trust their judgement, hate their business model, and don't even like their games? Not every game needs to or even should cater to just your opinion.

Because people are allowed to have an opinion? Your Gw games don't get a free pass where only people who agree with them get to post.

And yet we have a thread here for 'optimists only'. I wonder how people would react if someone made a 'pessimists only' thread....

 jonolikespie wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

Jack Flask wrote:

Seriously why do any of you spend so much time antagonizing fans of GW games if you apparently don't trust their judgement, hate their business model, and don't even like their games? Not every game needs to or even should cater to just your opinion.

Because people are allowed to have an opinion? Your Gw games don't get a free pass where only people who agree with them get to post.

And yet we have a thread here for 'optimists only'. I wonder how people would react if someone made a 'pessimists only' thread....

I think it would be absolutely fan-freakin'-tastic if you created a "pessimists only" thread and limited all of your pessimistic posting to there. This sub-forum would certainly be a better place without your constant need to explain how you're here to post your opinion just because you can.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Re why people spend so much time "antagonizing fans" (? just discussing/ voicing opinions maybe?) here. It doesn't help that the company hilariously fails on so many fronts, no wonder it attracts attention imo. A clown on the street attracts attention too.

Emphasis mine: discussion ended weeks ago, at this point its more like a shouting match from the few same posters over and over again who feel the need to chime in everywhere with the same exact opinion as their singular response to everything. I have seen nothing new warranting a discussion, just an attempt to flood this forum with repetition (as if that somehow makes one's opinion closer to fact).

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Great to see that attempts on pushing the blame on critics are going strong btw. Somehow other games don't attract that much disdain, must be something wrong with people. Logic ftw.

Logic must mean something different in Poland, because in America, it is pretty logical for folks to be upset at people who continually tell them their opinion is the wrong one to have.


Edit: I mean, seriously, seriously jump back 10 pages and pick up from there... the SAME exact "discussion" exists, the "pro AoS" side changes as new folks keep coming to replace the ones who get fed up and leave the thread, yet the dissenting voices are exactly the same... say your piece then this thread really should be locked.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

Jack Flask wrote:

Seriously why do any of you spend so much time antagonizing fans of GW games if you apparently don't trust their judgement, hate their business model, and don't even like their games? Not every game needs to or even should cater to just your opinion.

Because people are allowed to have an opinion? Your Gw games don't get a free pass where only people who agree with them get to post.

And yet we have a thread here for 'optimists only'. I wonder how people would react if someone made a 'pessimists only' thread....

At least I would be overjoyed. You know what, I'd volunteer to create it for you. Just say the word.

Well, this thread has gotten nowhere.

The balance is there, it is easy to attain. If you look at your 20 knights and my 20 peasant militia and feel they are balanced then you don't have the mental faculties to count up successes.

The hyperbole that people are going to have a hard time getting their games somewhat even and that people are standing around their flgs waiting to crush people with vast armies they refuse to not field in their entirety is utter rubbish.

The game is fun, easy to get started, has great models, and has significant depth when taking every possible rules interaction into account.

That is an opinion, it cannot be wrong, you may simply disagree with it. Now that I've posted it, I will leave this discussion for another week or two and see who still feels like repeating themselves.

The more I play age of sigmar against new opponents, the less I'm liking the game.
IMO, the basic problem is that their are way too many freak'n units. With so many special rules, it's a really steep learning curve to know what everything does.
If neither player has a grasp of what the opponents army does, it's really tough to find a balance during deployment.

This has led to decent games against people I frequently see, and terribly lopsided games against armies and people I rarely see.

This may even out in a year or two, once most people have faced most armies and seen most of the tricks, but I don't think AoS will survive in the local group for that length of time.

IMO, AoS needs some structure to ball-park it, and get kind of close to balance.

I do agree that I find the game actually too complicated/too much to remember. It makes me wish we were in the future where you moved models around on an energized board that automatically did all the buffs etc for you. Keeping track of everything is a chore. I also wish more of the abilities were automatic and you didn't have to remember to declare them every hero phase.

Jack Flask wrote:
Seriously why do any of you spend so much time antagonizing fans of GW games if you apparently don't trust their judgement, hate their business model, and don't even like their games? Not every game needs to or even should cater to just your opinion.

There are people who believe screaming that GW sucks loud enough will bring it to its knees. For whatever reasons, they dislike GW, and AoS THAT much

As the vast majority of people who game in my area don't read this or other websites, certainly not beyond rumors, and the overwhelming majority of new players I've encountered haven't really looked at ANY forum, I think they're wasting their time, but it's their time to waste!

Thirty years from now, when GW is still selling space marines and space elves, they can wonder what they could have been doing instead of posting over and over again that AoS rules are for simpletons, game systems without points are ridiculous and that GW prices are obscenely high compared to Gundam suits, civil war dudes carrying bayonets. or WW2 tanks.

You only live 25,000 days, give or take. So live those days doing things you like, I say. Or bashing GW, whatever takes your fancy

quiestdeus wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

And yet we have a thread here for 'optimists only'. I wonder how people would react if someone made a 'pessimists only' thread....

I think it would be absolutely fan-freakin'-tastic if you created a "pessimists only" thread and limited all of your pessimistic posting to there. This sub-forum would certainly be a better place without your constant need to explain how you're here to post your opinion just because you can.

Who ever said the pessimist talk would only be in that thread?
You missed the point entirely.

The point is that if you don't want to hear certain opinion or certain people's opinion you options are to use the ignore button or try another forum.

Jack Flask wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Yes I never quite understood the voices saying how AoS is going to fix the playerbase by getting rid of "black hearted jocks rampaging the community for years". If enough players play AoS, the "tfgs" will come anyway and if anything, they will thrive in the environment the rules create.

...
...

It is a way to put a positive spin on not having a points system.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Yes, that was the argument, that the points system facilitated the use of cheesy lists by creating a false impression of fairness and validated the cheesemonger who could say he was simply playing by the rules.

Thus the absence of points in AoS would have the opposite effect, however it hasn't.

My own view, expressed at the time, is that a non-balanced system can be gamed if people want to game it.

To be clear, most of the people at the AoS Weekend apparently did not bring cheesy armies, so obviously people did not want to game the system all that much. However, that is largely true in 40K as well.

I'll respond to your current post as well as the post from the other thread at the same time if that's ok.

You are very clearly missing the point of what people were getting at, which Mymearan pretty much just covered. The issue that happens with 40k which is less likely to happen with AoS, is two people hearing a point number, both making lists, and then one list severely outperforms the other because they are either totally different power levels or are fundamentally incompatible.

You say that people bringing highly competitive lists to casual games doesn't happen often and I don't disagree, the bigger problem is when two people think they're bringing two even lists that absolutely aren't. This happened to two of my friends who play casual Imperial vs Tau games often. The first couple of games they played (they started just before AdMech) were incredibly one-sided in the favor of the Tau against Space Marines. After that the SM bought some newly released AdMech which did significantly better against the Tau, after which the Tau player added a riptide (he likes mech suits and wanted a riptide since he started) which pushed it back into his favor. Thus as a result the Admech player bought a Knight to match the Tau player's overall higher point (he removed stuff to field the riptide) army, and tabled him by turn 3 two games in a row. This led two the Tau player asking permission to proxy a Y'varnah which together with his riptide let him shoot the Admech player off the table by turn 3. Neither was happy with the other.

The problem with 40k is not just some instances of spotty pointing, but the massive diversity present within the rules. You can run infantry hordes, tank companies, all walker forces, "spellcasters", elite MSU, shooting focused armies, melee focused armies, the list goes on... It is basically impossible to balance all of these different units and play styles while still allowing flexibility in army building. If GW did balance an entire codex on one or two play styles then it would force everything into cookie cutter builds or leading to certain units not even being made because they don't fit the archetype. This is one of the reasons that 30k is viewed as being so much better balanced, because how can it not be when outside of 2-3 special units and a few commander variants, everyone is pulling from the same pool of units.

AoS, rules as written, asks that rather than just shuffling together X number of points you instead take a look at what each of you brought and decide on an appropriate game from there. Sure you can do that in any game but AoS asks you to do this from the start, so if someone does bring something ludicrously good then that dialogue of "hey I only have this stuff, I feel this might be a little one sided because of X" is already open.

All the situations that people keep inventing of how some guy can still absolutely staunchly refuse to change his list are manufactured arguments, and it reflects more poorly on the community than it does AoS. If I ask someone to play a game and he asks me to take something out but I disagree, I'd politely and briefly explain why I disagree. If he still disagrees then I'll take it out and play. If it makes for a balanced game then I'll have gathered a better grasp of the system. If its totally one-sided and I play them with the same lists again, then I'll use that as a case to field what I originally wanted. If for whatever reason they refuse, in spite of last game, I simply won't play them and cite them crushing me last time if I ask why.

In reality its really no different from two people showing up to play a casual 1000pt game, and one of them bringing a bare bones Tau commander, two bare firewarrior squads, and a Taun'ar Supremacy Armor. Most people would seriously question the fairness of that army, and if the player refused to use something else then they likely wouldn't see many games. Again, the one advantage of no points is it stops people from using them as a shield for refusing to actually evaluate armies, making the "2015 Eldar" issue nonexistant. It is absolutely much easier to convince someone to remove something on the basis of it being unfair when there's no illusion of points to obscure the issue.

Sarouan wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

It is a way to put a positive spin on not having a points system.

Hm, I would rather say it's a way to stigmatize those who regret WFB rules. That's the biggest "argument" so far from AoS White Knights; WFB players were all "TFG" players who only wanted to show their victory on the corpses of their hapless opponents. And point cost system was the root of all Evil in favor of that behavior.

Yeah, right. Last event in Nottingham showed that competition didn't stop in AoS. Rules may change, players stay the same. No reason an optimizer still faithful to GW games would stop optimizing with their GW armies in AoS as well.

Oh so because people enjoy AoS and defend the reasons why they like it, they're "White Knights"? Do you even know what white knight means? I've never denied that GW makes mistakes or could do things better, just because my or other fans' list of grievances is different than yours doesn't make us some sort of shills. Also, I don't defend AoS or 40k because they are GW games, I defend them because I find them enjoyable to play.

By your definition of the term then shouldn't every jilted GW-ex who posts comments about how others should switch to Malifaux/WMH/Infinity/etc also be called a White Knight? Because honestly I find their insistence that I should drop a system I enjoy simply because of a few issues that rarely effect me to be pretty obnoxious.

Noir wrote:

 chaosmarauder wrote:
I think that in tournaments - you are going to use one of those finely tuned comp systems that people are coming up with these days.

For day to day play against a random person - I'm thinking that number of wounds is just as balanced as using 40ks points system. And if you start with saying its a 'casual game' then any reasonable person isnt going to use those wounds to spam nagash or elite troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if you think about it, even with 40ks point system, all local LGS have come up with different house rules anyway - certain points, no lords of war, no flyers, or whatever

Its not unreasonable to say "we play 100 wound games here and you have to take 3 basic troops and no more than 3 heroes/monsters" or something similar

Finely tuned, that is funny. Like pointed out above you need to get out of the GW mind set. Other game don't have these issues.

Other games aren't AoS or 40k. Other games don't have the same amount of unit diversity or probably misguided adherence to some bizarre caricature of the lore that AoS and 40k have. And that's why me and my friends don't play those other games. I field Electro Priests despite how garbage they are because I enjoy the fluff, adore the models, and have fun watching them try to do things regardless.

If you want tight balance, cheaper models, or a more consistent combat scale then those games exist for you to play.

Games Workshop doesn't have to make them, and I find it hilarious how many people think they should.

Seriously why do any of you spend so much time antagonizing fans of GW games if you apparently don't trust their judgement, hate their business model, and don't even like their games? Not every game needs to or even should cater to just your opinion.

I just wanted to say this is an awesome post Jack Flask. I agree with what you are saying here!

TrollSlayerThorak'Khun'Na wrote:
I do agree that I find the game actually too complicated/too much to remember. It makes me wish we were in the future where you moved models around on an energized board that automatically did all the buffs etc for you. Keeping track of everything is a chore. I also wish more of the abilities were automatic and you didn't have to remember to declare them every hero phase.

Yes! I have been making custom counters out of bitz, but I think I'm going to have to invest in the litko counters. I've forgotton a random buff at least once in every game so far.

I definitely haven't been using Warmachine counters in my AoS games.
Using the focus/fury tokens as stacking wound markers is an absolute and total pain and exceedingly inconvenient.
The multipurpose tokens you can write on with a dry-wipe pen have absolutely no practical uses I can think of in a game of AoS.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1]