So I'm noticing a lot of talk about the silly rules that are in some of the units Warscrolls, pretty much spread across Dakka. I thought it might be good to make a thread showing all of these ridiculous rules and ask what people think.



So what do you think? Are you looking forward to having silly shenanigans?

Nope........ Will just ignore these, if my opponent want sot be silly, then he can go play mario Party with his 10yr old.

I got into Fantasy/40k b.c I like Building/lists/strategies

I didnt Spend 10k$ on a silly kids game.

These are the best rules ever written for any wargame. Period.

Originally I kinda liked the idea of them, then I played a game earlier, and now I'm just going to house rule that the conditions do not apply, or even the rule itself doesn't apply in certain cases, eg Settra and kneeling

I am growing a mustache from today but it seems to me that those rules were created for funsies and I guess out of date characters who are unlikely to return in the long run, remember over time AoS is going to release new units and champions etc... I think this was just to show that "YOU CAN MAKE UP ANYTHING YOU WANT IN THIS GAME" its your game, play it how you want it.

I am going to create a nudist rule and each piece of clothing I take off I can bring back a dead unit

This is LARP.

Wait, so Konrad wasn't supposed to talk back before AoS....?

These rules are GW giving the finger to people that want to play a serious tournament game. I think they are awesome.

 Brotherjanus wrote:
These rules are GW giving the finger to people that want to play a serious tournament game. I think they are awesome.

a new rule to include...
"middle finger of nurgle" you stick out your middle finger, if the opponent smells it and twists his face you reroll to hit on one unit, remember to keep your middle finger in your butt to get the smell deep into the fingernail.

I think they are hilarious. And every time I see a nerd rage about a silly game, it gives me the feel goods inside GW devs were probably laughing their butts off writing these rules. Brilliant!

Ridiculous, pointless jackassery, with no redeeming features. They're rules crafted assuming that people who play WHFB are nothing more than immature neckbearded manchildren.

 Chootum wrote:
GW devs were probably laughing their butts off writing these rules.

Well this part is true at least. GW is clearly mocking their player base to their faces. It honestly surprises me how many seem to be going along with it. Before the release I had actually been looking forward to the possibility of a skirmish fantasy game (after that rumor popped up).

I'm more surprised by the number of people who are quick to call people who enjoy or like these silly rules "mentally slowed 5 year olds"...

On the bright side, basically every unit is viable.

good on GW. they realize they are a mini company, not a gaming company.

 Chootum wrote:
I think they are hilarious. And every time I see a nerd rage about a silly game, it gives me the feel goods inside GW devs were probably laughing their butts off writing these rules. Brilliant!

It will be interesting to see if it gains enough traction. Personally, I preordered the Kings of War 2.0 rules last night. I'd been waiting for GW's new fantasy ruleset, but I have fun playing friendly games without needing a completely non-balanced ruleset to remind me to, er, have fun doing so

Half the game for me is army building and planning, so a game without points or balance simply isn't for me. I don't begrudge those who like it, but I think it's wishful thinking that this experiment will actually work for GW and replace the share of the market that they are literally willingly throwing away. It could be better for it to happen now, and let other rulesets cater to any kind of competitive gaming, and GW to the "for laughs with friends only" gaming. I just can't fathom how they came to that decision from a financial perspective but only time will show the results.

Even is AoS is "for laughs with friends only," I'm not sure how you're supposed to stay friends while playing it. >_>;

 Jewelfox wrote:
Even is AoS is "for laughs with friends only," I'm not sure how you're supposed to stay friends while playing it. >_>;

Are you the type of person to lose friends over Cards Against Humanity or even Monopoly? Are you going to disown family because they wave their hand across the table and utter "War"?

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Nope........ Will just ignore these, if my opponent want sot be silly, then he can go play mario Party with his 10yr old.

I got into Fantasy/40k b.c I like Building/lists/strategies

I didnt Spend 10k$ on a silly kids game.

Yes, you did. Now grow up.

Rihgu wrote:

 Jewelfox wrote:
Even is AoS is "for laughs with friends only," I'm not sure how you're supposed to stay friends while playing it. >_>;

Are you the type of person to lose friends over Cards Against Humanity or even Monopoly? Are you going to disown family because they wave their hand across the table and utter "War"?

Let's just say, I feel that this kind of defensiveness is part of the reason that we can't have nice things. ^^;

 RiTides wrote:

 Chootum wrote:
I think they are hilarious. And every time I see a nerd rage about a silly game, it gives me the feel goods inside GW devs were probably laughing their butts off writing these rules. Brilliant!

It will be interesting to see if it gains enough traction. Personally, I preordered the Kings of War 2.0 rules last night. I'd been waiting for GW's new fantasy ruleset, but I have fun playing friendly games without needing a completely non-balanced ruleset to remind me to, er, have fun doing so

Half the game for me is army building and planning, so a game without points or balance simply isn't for me. I don't begrudge those who like it, but I think it's wishful thinking that this experiment will actually work for GW and replace the share of the market that they are literally willingly throwing away. It could be better for it to happen now, and let other rulesets cater to any kind of competitive gaming, and GW to the "for laughs with friends only" gaming. I just can't fathom how they came to that decision from a financial perspective but only time will show the results.

What share? Fantasy has dropped from about 25% of the companies sales before 6th edition to something like 10%-13% now. Hell, PAINT sells more than fantasy by a large margin. They clearly had to do something with it so why not simply make the game fun and more accessible? You can now buy any box of fantasy models and play a fun game with someone so long as your opponent isn't a complete douche. Works for me.

As for all the Rage and anger about it being a child's game now and being ruined for serious players. I deeply apologize that your game of playing with toy dollies is no longer the serious toy dollies game you started playing with years ago. Perhaps you need to find another game involving toy dollies to play that is more serious in it's handling of playing with toy dollies.

The most beardy rule to me is "the most important rule" that takes up too much space on the 4 page rulesheet ...

That said silly rules like "he that has the biggest beard wins the roll off" from SAGA reminds me of this stuff ... but in SAGA it is a beer and pretzel game and rules are fun to read and bigger than 4 pages .

 Melissia wrote:
Ridiculous, pointless jackassery, with no redeeming features. They're rules crafted assuming that people who play WHFB are nothing more than immature neckbearded manchildren.

Agreed on all accounts, I am pleased that WHFB is dead in my gaming circle

Young kids love those shouting kind of rules, look at the Waagh in 40K. They can even be fun for adults if done in moderation.

I don't like them being pushed on me as an important part of a tabletop wargame, so I would ignore them in practice. The game will run fine without them.

In my view Fantasy had dropped to the point where it was no longer profitable. GW have attempted to reboot it. Their target market clearly is not the hardcore or tournament player, it is kids and super fans, and people who just want a cheap, simple game.

The US Army plays games with Toy Dollies to train commanders.

I think these types of rules pierce the core of the insularity of WFB-as-was. It was, in my experience, a game for veterans with all the exclusivity and cliquishness that accompanies certain types of historical wargames.

Games are meant to be fun and, yes, even silly at times. That said no-one is holding a gun to your head, do what you want. As Kilkrazy said; the game will run fine without them.

Also, I particularly like the Hooded Villain rule from the Great Moonclan. Re-roll warbosses hits but ... only if you are wearing a hood.

 Melissia wrote:
Ridiculous, pointless jackassery, with no redeeming features. They're rules crafted assuming that people who play WHFB are nothing more than immature neckbearded manchildren.

I'm confused by your comment. Is GW wrong to assume that "that people who play WHFB competitively are nothing more than immature neckbearded manchildren."

GW has been anti-competitive play for quite some time now, and it's nice to see GW honestly and openly getting back to their roots of what GW wants their business and game to be.

What's surprising is how many players didn't believe GW, and are still in denial about what GW gaming is supposed to be, from a GW POV.

deleted rant.

I don't know why I'm continuing to pay attention to this, it just makes me angry. I'm out. WFB is dead to me.

I am not going to lie, I may play a few games of this with my close friends, basing the models chosen on scenarios.

But I doubt it will ever go beyond that. I wanted a skirmish fantasy game, but this is to big a price to pay. These rules are silly, stupid and make no bloody sense and are essentielly geared towards snotty 10 year olds and their ilk. Im going to stick with 8th and pray that GW have the sense to release 9th before WHFB finally chokes and dies..... And they do not have long left, already we can hear its death rattles.....

Thanks for doing this, Mysterious Pants.

Eh, these rules are pretty fun, and a particular favourite of mine is having to talk to Konrad.

However, they're just the last nail in the coffin on any semblance of seriousness in this game... Being in a GW playing a wargame in which my opponent dances and bellows "Waaaggh!" at the top of his voice (which I know people will do) is not what I play wargames for, nor my idea of fun. I'm sure people will have a laugh with these rules, and fair play to them, but I won't be joining them.

JohnHwangDD - This isn't GW "getting back to its roots", rather, it's their new direction. I don't begrudge them it - I will just play Kings of War.

It will be interesting to see how it works out for them, but generally throwing away market share isn't a wise move financially . Fantasy needed a reboot, but their new game has a much narrower target audience. I'll be curious how many people actually stick with it and purchase hundreds or thousands of dollars of models like they do for 40k, or just treat it as a diversion. Financially and with the lack of points / restrictions, GW is clearly aiming for the former... but with no balance I think people will enjoy it as a fun/crazy distraction but not something to really invest in.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Is GW wrong to assume that "that people who play WHFB competitively are nothing more than immature neckbearded manchildren."

Yes.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]

They made a terrible system worse. Wut. How?

 Brotherjanus wrote:
These rules are GW giving the finger to people that want to play a serious tournament game. I think they are awesome.

They keep giving the middle finger as sales continue in a declining free fall. Tournament players will ultimately have the last laugh and we won't even have to dance, bow, kneel, or speak to our figures while we do it ..

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


GW has been anti-competitive play for quite some time now, and it's nice to see GW honestly and openly getting back to their roots of what GW wants their business and game to be.

A game for people who giggle when someone says "penis"?

 Sigvatr wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


GW has been anti-competitive play for quite some time now, and it's nice to see GW honestly and openly getting back to their roots of what GW wants their business and game to be.

A game for people who giggle when someone says "penis"?

A game for people who like to snigger every time someone says "but"?

I think they are fine - bit of a laugh and fun and something to get away from the more poe faced aspects of game play.

I do some of these things anyway and apparenttly am more fun to play than Rules lawyer types.

But each to their own

The only one I don't like is the on that requires insutling your opponent - prefer the old magic one where you have to complement him/her or loose the card

I don;t have a moustache or beard or indeed intend to get one
Am older than most people I play agianst.
I don't Dance - Period.
Seldom carry a mirror or goblet

 Melissia wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


GW has been anti-competitive play for quite some time now, and it's nice to see GW honestly and openly getting back to their roots of what GW wants their business and game to be.

A game for people who giggle when someone says "penis"?

A game for people who like to snigger every time someone says "but"?

The guys in my GW at game night the other day did indeed snigger when a skaven player said of his opponent's cannon shot "and yep, it'll just clip my bell". But I confess that I also found it a little funny

 Chootum wrote:
I think they are hilarious. And every time I see a nerd rage about a silly game, it gives me the feel goods inside GW devs were probably laughing their butts off writing these rules. Brilliant!

And as I pointed out in the main AoS rumour thread; that's nice of them, crafting rules as a middle finger to customers who've supported them for years and decades, without thinking for a moment how it might impact people with ASDs or other social disorders. Yet another barrier to already marginalised people enjoying their hobby: "Brilliant!"

I'm staggered by the number of people who find this acceptable. I can only assume they're trolling the thread.

 RiTides wrote:
JohnHwangDD - This isn't GW "getting back to its roots", rather, it's their new direction. I don't begrudge them it - I will just play Kings of War.

It will be interesting to see how it works out for them, but generally throwing away market share isn't a wise move financially . Fantasy needed a reboot, but their new game has a much narrower target audience. I'll be curious how many people actually stick with it and purchase hundreds or thousands of dollars of models like they do for 40k, or just treat it as a diversion. Financially and with the lack of points / restrictions, GW is clearly aiming for the former... but with no balance I think people will enjoy it as a fun/crazy distraction but not something to really invest in.

I can see people, myself included, though continuing to buy WFB/AoS models for KoW. Because the vast majority look way way better and the KoW basing rules mean you don't need much more than a box of something to make a unit. So even then GW isn't really giving up market share in what matters for fantasy which is model sales.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I'm staggered by the number of people who find this acceptable. I can only assume they're trolling the thread.

I'm also surprised about the amount of people whose opinions are overwhelmingly positive about Age of Sigmar, and I think it's genuine. I can see AoS, these rules included, being fun for some, and fair enough to them, but it's not for me!

I truly mean what I say here:
I am so glad I am investing in other games.
Some may like this direction, glad it worked out for someone.
GW is nuts, I believe them when they say they do no market research.
Kirby must be on the cusp of retirement and does not want the company to survive him.

I could see that too, Hulk, although there has been a huge 3rd party model market for fantasy, with people using them for GW rules. If that now shifts to Kings of War, GW will definitely lose market share, although my army includes a mix of their models and other manufacturers (mostly others, because I'm me ). Whether AoS model sales are enough to make up for that will be interesting...

In this thread:

"Something something toy dollies"

"Something something slowed 5-year old"

Can everyone take a break from their condescension and realize people are in this hobby for different reasons? This game is marketed towards one specific group of players at the total expense of another. Have some respect for each other, geez.

 Brotherjanus wrote:
These rules are GW giving the finger to people that want to play a serious tournament game. I think they are awesome.

We will see who gives who the finger when GW reports its earnings July 28th..... Gonna buy some shares, expecting a bump? You do that... If able, I would short a boatload....

i love these rules. i want to see someone try to set up a tournament for AoS it would be the funniest thing ever! and the fact is for GW 40K sells better so why not make fantasy easier to handle for them so they can focus on 40K fantasy has been dying for a while now as it was to elitist / required to many models to start. i'm looking forward to getting to play this and getting to talk to my invisible horse. heck finally i have an excuse for my beard i need it so i can get my battle standard bearer to be better! if you don;t like it just stick to the last edition. there's enough copy's bouncing around ebay. there is nothing that say's you have to play AoS.

lustigjh wrote:
Can everyone take a break from their condescension and realize people are in this hobby for different reasons? This game is marketed towards one specific group of players at the total expense of another. Have some respect for each other, geez.

I don't know about everyone else, but I've said multiple times that I respect Age of Sigmar for what it is - a fun, casual game for kids that has simplistic and often wacky rules that many will find appealing. That's all well and good, and fair play to all those who will go away and enjoy those rules. However, what I'm not ok with is those same people telling us that we shouldn't be annoyed at AoS and that it's actually a good ruleset, because we have every right to be and, well, AoS is not a good ruleset.

I want to add... I think we can expect management turnover by 2017. There's just too much money at stake for these major institutional investors to let it go if there's quarter after quarter decline.... I have personally been writing letters.

lustigjh wrote:
In this thread:

"Something something toy dollies"

"Something something slowed 5-year old"

Can everyone take a break from their condescension and realize people are in this hobby for different reasons? This game is marketed towards one specific group of players at the total expense of another. Have some respect for each other, geez.

I agree, the extremes of neither side come of well to me, with those in support saying 'deal with it and lighten up', regardless of peoples misgivings which I find myself agreeing with(I find myself personally agreeing with Yohdrim; I have Asperger's Syndrome and will plan on politely asking my opponent to forgo the shouty rules if I ever find myself playing AoS, though I feel I may have an advantage with the mounted Slaanesh lord rule ), and those on the other side who use coarse, often ableist language to attack people they do not know or understand. I, myself? I think I shall try and convince some people to try KoW. It looks like a simple yet better constructed system. In my opinion, at least.

 RiTides wrote:
I could see that too, Hulk, although there has been a huge 3rd party model market for fantasy, with people using them for GW rules. If that now shifts to Kings of War, GW will definitely lose market share, although my army includes a mix of their models and other manufacturers (mostly others, because I'm me ). Whether AoS model sales are enough to make up for that will be interesting...

I do think the question "what market share?" is appropriate. When an entire line sells less than a single product of your other line I'm thinking there isn't much they can lose. I can't remember the last time I saw or heard of someone locally (and we're a pretty big gaming area with even WFB having 2 GT level events a year) starting a new fantasy army. Anything that produces any kind of movement (and I think AoS will) is a going to up the percentage of Fantasy models purchased. Even with people jumping to KoW. In fact I'd argue that having WFB players jump to KoW might actually increase sales as people round out GW WFB armies to match units in KoW. Possibly making their first purchase in quite some time though that's just a guess.

I would be a lot more receptive to this kid's game and it's silly rules had I not sunk thousands of dollars in it over the years.

THAT is what is pissing people off.

The Peal of Doom one is good as flavour text - as a rule that is never cited, but exists to tell the player a bit about Skaven psychology in an amusing fashion.

Most of the others are bad because somebody might actually try to use them.

Wulfric's rule is the worst. It is terrible the way April Fools' Day and Cards Against Humanity are terrible: it gives horrible people plausible deniability for being horrible people.

I've mostly been looking at these and laughing.. because i can never see thnem coming up often oenough to care.. but.. if i want to use my slaaneshhi lord..

Lord of Forbidden Pleasure: It is wise not
to gaze long upon the splendour of a Lord
of Slaanesh, lest terrible notions begin to
form. If an enemy unit finishes its pile in
move within 3" of a Lord of Slaanesh, you
can tell your opponent that they are in
danger of being beguiled. From that point
on, if your opponent looks you in the eye
before the unit has made its hit rolls for
that combat phase, subtract 1 from any of
those rolls which target this model.

Honestly do i really have to do that every time? I don't think i can play this game.

 AlexHolker wrote:
Cards Against Humanity are terrible: it gives horrible people plausible deniability for being horrible people.

Yet when I play Cards Against Humanity, I do so to laugh at that slightly questionable humour with my friends and a few drinks. When I play wargames, however, I do so because I want a tactical against my opponent on a level playing field, not because I want to pretend I'm riding a horse and show off my moustache.

yeah,

 treslibras wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
... I didnt Spend 10k$ on a silly kids game.

Yes, you did. Now grow up.

This^
To me this is hilarious in a german accent!



Panic...

I think these belong in a joke supplement along the lines of MTG Unglued/Unhinged rather than the core rules. And even then it wouldn't hurt to specify that beards and moustaches needn't be real...you know, to help out that rather sizeable section of the population who usually don't have beards...

 RiTides wrote:
JohnHwangDD - This isn't GW "getting back to its roots", rather, it's their new direction. I don't begrudge them it - I will just play Kings of War.

Go check out WFB through 5E - this is definitely getting back to the silliness and bad puns that characterized early Warhammer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Is GW wrong to assume that "that people who play WHFB competitively are nothing more than immature neckbearded manchildren."

Yes.

What the hell is wrong with you?

WTF is wrong with you? You're the one who called a spade a spade, or rather an immature neckbeard manchild a immature neckbeard manchild - those weren't my words, and they weren't GWs. But they are accurate.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
JohnHwangDD - This isn't GW "getting back to its roots", rather, it's their new direction. I don't begrudge them it - I will just play Kings of War.

Go check out WFB through 5E - this is definitely getting back to the silliness and bad puns that characterized early Warhammer.

Yep - its proper old Skool Warhammer

 Melissia wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Is GW wrong to assume that "that people who play WHFB competitively are nothing more than immature neckbearded manchildren."

Yes.

What the hell is wrong with you?

This is one of those occasions when I have to agree with Melissa. Competitive fantasy has always been fun, and I have never seen some immature neckbeard man-child people speak of.

Besides, even in open and fun non competitive you need some form of balance and Age of Sigmarines does not even include something as basic as a points system, it is literally a 'Bring all you have pay to win' system.

AOS is a TMIR game, where the result ("winning") is far less important than the process ("playing").

If you want balance and competitive play, then Warmahordes is over *there*, with their Page Four "Play like you got a pair" attitude.

I had fun with it.

I love these rules, because they aren't mandatory.

If you like playing the distinguished military commander, play Empire or an army that doesn't require you to act anything aside from a distinguished military commander.

If you like playing the barbarian, play Orks, because you get to yell alot.

If you like playing the Elf, play Aelves, because you can be aloof and arrogant during your hero phase.

Frankly, I find it fantastic, because it reinforces the "this is a roleplaying game" attitude that I enjoy in my warhammers.

people take them selves to seriously and devalue them selves by counted out others who wish to have relaxed fun...

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
AOS is a TMIR game, where the result ("winning") is far less important than the process ("playing").

Win or lose, playing the game is less fun with idiotic, arbitrary, and obnoxious rules like these.

 Melissia wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
AOS is a TMIR game, where the result ("winning") is far less important than the process ("playing").

Win or lose, playing the game is less fun with idiotic, arbitrary, and obnoxious rules like these.

so don't play w/ those rules, then? I don't think any Dwarf or Chaos or Ork, etc player will complain. If they do, then don't play them...

 Melissia wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
AOS is a TMIR game, where the result ("winning") is far less important than the process ("playing").

Win or lose, playing the game is less fun with idiotic, arbitrary, and obnoxious rules like these.

alternatively you could assign each model as a chess piece... FUN

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
AOS is a TMIR game, where the result ("winning") is far less important than the process ("playing").

Win or lose, playing the game is less fun with idiotic, arbitrary, and obnoxious rules like these.

so don't play w/ those rules, then? I don't think any Dwarf or Chaos or Ork, etc player will complain. If they do, then don't play them...

If the game requires that one houserule it to make it playable and fun, it is by definition badly designed.

So by saying this, you're admitting AoS is a badly designed game.

 Melissia wrote:

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
AOS is a TMIR game, where the result ("winning") is far less important than the process ("playing").

Win or lose, playing the game is less fun with idiotic, arbitrary, and obnoxious rules like these.

so don't play w/ those rules, then? I don't think any Dwarf or Chaos or Ork, etc player will complain. If they do, then don't play them...

If the game requires that one houserule it to make it playable and fun, it is by definition badly designed.

So by saying this, you're admitting AoS is a badly designed game.

Not quite, adjustments =/= poor design. Plus, your opinion of "playable and fun" is probably different than other people's, just a guess.

 Melissia wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
AOS is a TMIR game, where the result ("winning") is far less important than the process ("playing").

Win or lose, playing the game is less fun with idiotic, arbitrary, and obnoxious rules like these.

That's an opinion, as would be any claim that hinges on a value of "fun".

This means that it cannot be used as a premise to conclude a fact, such as "This game is badly designed."

It can only be used to conclude another opinion, such as "I don't like the way this game is designed."

It would have been better if they didn't release any rules.

 Col. Tartleton wrote:
It would have been better if they didn't release any rules.

Then I would be sad. I've never played Fantasy, but will be buying some awesome things because of this rules set.

Maybe the point of the rule is to weed out the no-fun-allowed SJWs in your area so you don't have to risk playing them?

 Hulksmash wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
I could see that too, Hulk, although there has been a huge 3rd party model market for fantasy, with people using them for GW rules. If that now shifts to Kings of War, GW will definitely lose market share, although my army includes a mix of their models and other manufacturers (mostly others, because I'm me ). Whether AoS model sales are enough to make up for that will be interesting...

I do think the question "what market share?" is appropriate. When an entire line sells less than a single product of your other line I'm thinking there isn't much they can lose. I can't remember the last time I saw or heard of someone locally (and we're a pretty big gaming area with even WFB having 2 GT level events a year) starting a new fantasy army. Anything that produces any kind of movement (and I think AoS will) is a going to up the percentage of Fantasy models purchased. Even with people jumping to KoW. In fact I'd argue that having WFB players jump to KoW might actually increase sales as people round out GW WFB armies to match units in KoW. Possibly making their first purchase in quite some time though that's just a guess.

That's very possible. I've certainly bought some things to round out my army, but they're non-GW (Titan Forge and Gamezone).

JohnHwangDD, I disagree, at least as far as rules go... I play all these games, and my warmahordes friends aren't "page 5" competitive sort. You can have fun with any ruleset, but with AoS, you're actually stuck with silliness for all settings.

That's not as big of a deal as the no points / balance issue, though. I don't think it will make for a game people are willing to invest a lot in long term building up armies like they would with a better ruleset, so while a reboot was sorely needed, I can't think of a way they could have done it that would be as bad as this. The rules read like they made them up while having a few, so it's funny to try, but that's about it...

As a dwarf player, am I really OK that my one wound models are valued the same as my friend's four-wound ogres? Or a small dwarf character is the same as a Bloodthirster? I can have fun without a company "forcing" me to by not balancing their units in any way lol.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
AOS is a TMIR game, where the result ("winning") is far less important than the process ("playing").

Win or lose, playing the game is less fun with idiotic, arbitrary, and obnoxious rules like these.

That's an opinion, as would be any claim that hinges on a value of "fun".

This means that it cannot be used as a premise to conclude a fact, such as "This game is badly designed."

It can only be used to conclude another opinion, such as "I don't like the way this game is designed."

Aos is badly designed - it's a fact. A well-designed game builds upon a firm set of rules that leaves little to no room for mistakenly understood rules (interpretation) and allows player to meet on an even level. AoS doesn't fulfill that criteria. Despite its relatively short release, it already has a few loopholes / blank spaces in the rules, house rules are required to be able to play the game and parts of the rules are even missing at that point. That makes it a badly designed game on an objective scale of things.

Does this mean that it's not enjoyable? Of course not. Many badly designed things have been enjoyed by people in the past, be it video games, technical devices, etc. Noone wants to tell anyone else that they're stupid for not liking something (rather the opposite is the case, i.e. fanboys hating others...but alas). A lot of people just dislike the rules because they are, objectively badly designed.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
AOS is a TMIR game, where the result ("winning") is far less important than the process ("playing").

Win or lose, playing the game is less fun with idiotic, arbitrary, and obnoxious rules like these.

That's an opinion, as would be any claim that hinges on a value of "fun".

This means that it cannot be used as a premise to conclude a fact, such as "This game is badly designed."

It can only be used to conclude another opinion, such as "I don't like the way this game is designed."

Aos is badly designed - it's a fact. A well-designed game builds upon a firm set of rules that leaves little to no room for mistakenly understood rules (interpretation) and allows player to meet on an even level. AoS doesn't fulfill that criteria. Despite its relatively short release, it already has a few loopholes / blank spaces in the rules, house rules are required to be able to play the game and parts of the rules are even missing at that point. That makes it a badly designed game on an objective scale of things.

Does this mean that it's not enjoyable? Of course not. Many badly designed things have been enjoyed by people in the past, be it video games, technical devices, etc. Noone wants to tell anyone else that they're stupid for not liking something (rather the opposite is the case, i.e. fanboys hating others...but alas). A lot of people just dislike the rules because they are, objectively badly designed.

I don't see any loopholes or blank spaces - everything works out AFAIK. I certainly just played a game without house rules.

nevermind

Im going to echo the users who are not happy with this and are out. To those who say they don't understand why or judge us for saying it be aware. We have our rights to hate these changes as much as you have the rights to embrace them.

Its all about how you approach the game. I'm in the group that walks back out when they see people jumping around like idiots shouting waggghhh and comparing beard lengths, its not everyone's idea of fun. Im sure its going to bring in a load of rich kids making their parents buy all the latest stuff though so good on them but as others have said.

I'm not going to be a part of been made a fool for the sake of children customers. To those who say we don't know how to have fun, fun is different to all people. This at least to me is just cringy rather than fun. Fun is just a good game where the imposable roll happens or something unexpected goes down but I don't want to have to play duck duck goose to see it happen.

I am very confident these are for older models only. Almost a fluffy goodbye to them (as ill judged as some of these are). We house-ruled them out straight away.

I started this hobby with WHFB in early 7th. I took a break with 8th due to price hikes. I have recently started WH40K, Its bothering me that this rule set is probably making its way to 40k as we speak. My personal problems with this rule set is that I prefer more serious games, im not a WAAC player, i use bad units because I like them. Most of my games are pick up games at various game shops, this new system makes that impossible. From the "childish, im sorry but I cannot find a better adjective to use" rules to the complete lack of balance it makes finding pick up games impossible for ME. Half the fun I get from wargames is making lists and using tactics. Both are not supported with this new "fun" direction GW is taking with its products.

It kinda reeks tome of yet another excuse for the studio to not write good rules.

Edit, I have never played a tournament and never plan to. So I guess the whole "only tournament players are mad" tripe is just that, tripe.

This is probably just me, but I can't imagine that many school warhammer clubs are going to be able to continue based on these rules.

Normally throwing insults as other children is called bullying and is generally frowned upon, so a game that encourages it ...

ie there goes their target audience as well as the old guard

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
Im going to echo the users who are not happy with this and are out. To those who say they don't understand why or judge us for saying it be aware. We have our rights to hate these changes as much as you have the rights to embrace them.

Its all about how you approach the game. I'm in the group that walks back out when they see people jumping around like idiots shouting waggghhh and comparing beard lengths, its not everyone's idea of fun. Im sure its going to bring in a load of rich kids making their parents buy all the latest stuff though so good on them but as others have said.

I'm not going to be a part of been made a fool for the sake of children customers. To those who say we don't know how to have fun, fun is different to all people. This at least to me is just cringy rather than fun. Fun is just a good game where the imposable roll happens or something unexpected goes down but I don't want to have to play duck duck goose to see it happen.

here is the problem with your statement, first you say more or less that we are all equal in the idea of liking this and hating this which is fair, each gamer is unique and each one plays for his own "fun which is a great non biased statement that we should all embrace"... then you go and say "this is a children game now (more or less what you mean)"... which basically says to all the other people "you are children for liking it, I am going to play an adult game with dragons and goblins"

which just makes me imagine you fluffing your fedora every night


---
as you said, everyone has their own version of "fun"... so stop hating the people who think this is fun stop calling them children for playing a childrens game

But some people, like myself, enjoy winning. Not to the extent that they have to do everything possible in order to do so, but enough that they get enjoyment out of doing their best to try and out-think their opponent, within the constraints of the rules, in order to do their best to win. It's the same reason why, although I like playing cards, I don't enjoy playing Irish Snap. You can't win that game and, yes, it is fun, but I'd much rather be playing something which is, in my eyes, equally fun, but with the added enjoyment of trying to better your opponent(s). AoS, with its lack of balancing, does not give me that latter enjoyment.

bitethythumb wrote:

as you said, everyone has their own version of "fun"... so stop hating the people who think this is fun stop calling them children for playing a childrens game

Yes everyone has different opinions on whats fun, I view that kind of fun childish. It is still well within what I said about everyone having their own opinion. It is my right to see certain types of fun in a certain light personally as much as it is anyone else to see that type of fun a different way.

I see jumping around shouting out things and kneeling down to win a round as childish.
If someone else sees that as just fun and not childish thats their rights too, fun is in the eye of the beholder, neither is wrong. I happen to fall one side, someone might fall on the other.
All it does is effect what we do with this new system now.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Aos is badly designed - it's a fact. A well-designed game builds upon a firm set of rules that leaves little to no room for mistakenly understood rules (interpretation) and allows player to meet on an even level. AoS doesn't fulfill that criteria. Despite its relatively short release, it already has a few loopholes / blank spaces in the rules, house rules are required to be able to play the game and parts of the rules are even missing at that point. That makes it a badly designed game on an objective scale of things.

Does this mean that it's not enjoyable? Of course not. Many badly designed things have been enjoyed by people in the past, be it video games, technical devices, etc. Noone wants to tell anyone else that they're stupid for not liking something (rather the opposite is the case, i.e. fanboys hating others...but alas). A lot of people just dislike the rules because they are, objectively badly designed.

Please specify these loopholes and blank spaces. From what I see AOS doesn't have any obvious issues if played as intended.

If you are playing against the designer's intent, then that is your problem for not adapting the rules to your peculiar play practices.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

as you said, everyone has their own version of "fun"... so stop hating the people who think this is fun stop calling them children for playing a childrens game

Yes everyone has different opinions on whats fun, I view that kind of fun childish. It is still well within what I said about everyone having their own opinion. It is my right to see certain types of fun in a certain light personally as much as it is anyone else to see that type of fun a different way.

I see jumping around shouting out things and kneeling down to win a round as childish.
If someone else sees that as just fun and not childish thats their rights too, fun is in the eye of the beholder, neither is wrong. I happen to fall one side, someone might fall on the other.
All it does is effect what we do with this new system now.

I see people who are serious about a game of goblins and dragons that they think is "tactical" as silly and anal... seeing them get angry or mad for failing a dice roll is both sad and childish in my eyes... having an epic mustache is epic though... seems to me like you do not have a mustache... seriously though, was warhammer 8th in your eyes and adult game? and not childish because they did not have role-playing elements to it? do you not have the ability to "ignore" the rules you deem "childish" or do you need the big GW to hold your hand and tell you how to play your game of goblins and dragons because it has always and always will be a childish game... no matter what edition.

ShaneTB wrote:
I am very confident these are for older models only. Almost a fluffy goodbye to them (as ill judged as some of these are). We house-ruled them out straight away.

good point. I wasn't expecting any "beard rules" for new models/units, either.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


If you are playing against the designer's intent, then that is your problem for not adapting the rules to your peculiar play practices.

Intend and execution are two vastly different things. Michael Bay certainly wants to make "good" movies. Does that make those good movies?

Flaws have been pointed out in the previous threads multiple times. Incompletion of rules, particular loopholes (e.g. "rolling" the 13 with the Bell), etc.

Opponent takes Settra.

'Accidentally' drop a dice under the table that rolls to his feet.

He is a true gent and kneels to pick up your die for you.

Then he auto looses hahah


I like these stupid rules, they are mostly in units that either no one took or the benefits are so small it doesn't really matter.

bitethythumb wrote:

I see people who are serious about a game of goblins and dragons that they think is "tactical" as silly and anal... seeing them get angry or mad for failing a dice roll is both sad and childish in my eyes... having an epic mustache is epic though... seems to me like you do not have a mustache... seriously though, was warhammer 8th in your eyes and adult game? and not childish because they did not have role-playing elements to it? do you not have the ability to "ignore" the rules you deem "childish" or do you need the big GW to hold your hand and tell you how to play your game of goblins and dragons because it has always and always will be a childish game... no matter what edition.

Well thats your opinion to have.

And my right to disagree.

 XT-1984 wrote:
Opponent takes Settra.

'Accidentally' drop a dice under the table that rolls to his feet.

He is a true gent and kneels to pick up your die for you.

Then he auto looses hahah


I like these stupid rules, they are mostly in units that either no one took or the benefits are so small it doesn't really matter.

Opponent takes Sittra. Kick his knees. Autowin!

 Sigvatr wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


If you are playing against the designer's intent, then that is your problem for not adapting the rules to your peculiar play practices.

Intend and execution are two vastly different things. Michael Bay certainly wants to make "good" movies. Does that make those good movies?

Flaws have been pointed out in the previous threads multiple times. Incompletion of rules, particular loopholes (e.g. "rolling" the 13 with the Bell), etc.

Michael Bay makes movies, movies are made for profit, Michael Bay makes a lot of profit therefore Michael Bay makes good movies....

bitethythumb wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


If you are playing against the designer's intent, then that is your problem for not adapting the rules to your peculiar play practices.

Intend and execution are two vastly different things. Michael Bay certainly wants to make "good" movies. Does that make those good movies?

Flaws have been pointed out in the previous threads multiple times. Incompletion of rules, particular loopholes (e.g. "rolling" the 13 with the Bell), etc.

Michael Bay makes movies, movies are made for profit, Michael Bay makes a lot of profit therefore Michael Bay makes good movies....

Indeed I like some of his movies - they are good if you like them, bad if you don't - its entirely a matter of opinion - like if AOS's "silly rules are "fun".

 doktor_g wrote:

 Brotherjanus wrote:
These rules are GW giving the finger to people that want to play a serious tournament game. I think they are awesome.

We will see who gives who the finger when GW reports its earnings July 28th..... Gonna buy some shares, expecting a bump? You do that... If able, I would short a boatload....

Unfortunately we won't see the results of this endeavour until next year. GW's financial year runs from June 1st-May 31st

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I love these rules, because they aren't mandatory.

Show me where it says this. Go on, I'll wait.

 Mr Morden wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


If you are playing against the designer's intent, then that is your problem for not adapting the rules to your peculiar play practices.

Intend and execution are two vastly different things. Michael Bay certainly wants to make "good" movies. Does that make those good movies?

Flaws have been pointed out in the previous threads multiple times. Incompletion of rules, particular loopholes (e.g. "rolling" the 13 with the Bell), etc.

Michael Bay makes movies, movies are made for profit, Michael Bay makes a lot of profit therefore Michael Bay makes good movies....

Indeed I like some of his movies - they are good if you like them, bad if you don't - its entirely a matter of opinion - like if AOS's "silly rules are "fun".

the amazing thing is that as adults we have evolved the ability to ignore the rules we do not like as we can ignore the movies we do not like... some people seem to have forgotten that ability of ours, Darwin is crying :(... I for one live roleplaying and will encourage myself and my drunk posse to act more stupid during gaming as well as increase nudity and nigh homo erotic wrestling... because Slaanesh.

bitethythumb wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


If you are playing against the designer's intent, then that is your problem for not adapting the rules to your peculiar play practices.

Intend and execution are two vastly different things. Michael Bay certainly wants to make "good" movies. Does that make those good movies?

Flaws have been pointed out in the previous threads multiple times. Incompletion of rules, particular loopholes (e.g. "rolling" the 13 with the Bell), etc.

Michael Bay makes movies, movies are made for profit, Michael Bay makes a lot of profit therefore Michael Bay makes good movies....

Popularity of something is not indicative of quality.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


If you are playing against the designer's intent, then that is your problem for not adapting the rules to your peculiar play practices.

Intend and execution are two vastly different things. Michael Bay certainly wants to make "good" movies. Does that make those good movies?

Flaws have been pointed out in the previous threads multiple times. Incompletion of rules, particular loopholes (e.g. "rolling" the 13 with the Bell), etc.

I believe that Bay does an excellent job at making the movie that he intends. None better. Judged against that, and considering the box office takes, his movies *are* good. End of discussion.

No, I think a proper enumeration of actual loopholes is warranted, not merely "it's not the same as WFB8".

 Grimtuff wrote:

 doktor_g wrote:

 Brotherjanus wrote:
These rules are GW giving the finger to people that want to play a serious tournament game. I think they are awesome.

We will see who gives who the finger when GW reports its earnings July 28th..... Gonna buy some shares, expecting a bump? You do that... If able, I would short a boatload....

Unfortunately we won't see the results of this endeavour until next year. GW's financial year runs from June 1st-May 31st

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I love these rules, because they aren't mandatory.

Show me where it says this. Go on, I'll wait.

#

page 20... white dwarf... and I quote word for word.

"The most important rule"

"In a game as detailed nd wide-ranging as warhammer age of sigmar, there may be times when you are not sure exactly how to resolve a situation that has come up during play. When this happens, have a quick chat with your opponent, and apply the solution that makes the most sense to you both (or seems the most fun!). If no single solution presents itself, both of you should roll a dice, and whoever rolls highers gets to choose what happens. Then you can get on with the fighting."

OR IN SHORT... behave like adults and talk it out without having them to hold your hand like a child.

bitethythumb wrote:

OR IN SHORT... behave like adults and talk it out without having them to hold your hand like a child.

Since when was having set conditions for situations hand holding, I mean how would that play out in tournament style games.
Imagine in Chess if we could just go with our gut when we wanted to win. Im sorry but making vague rules because you can't make good rules isn't them making it fun for all. Its just leaving gaps in the rules and expecting the players to fill it in when we come across a basic 'plot hole' of rules. It is after all what they get paid to do. I mean pretty much goes against the meaning of rules:

Rules: "One or a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particular area of activity."

Saying act like adults because people don't like vague make it up yourself rules, is like calling people who like their instruction manuals to have accurate information on how to build their couch as 'people who need their hand holding entitled whiners'

bitethythumb wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Show me where it says this. Go on, I'll wait.

#

page 20... white dwarf... and I quote word for word.

"The most important rule"

"In a game as detailed nd wide-ranging as warhammer age of sigmar, there may be times when you are not sure exactly how to resolve a situation that has come up during play. When this happens, have a quick chat with your opponent, and apply the solution that makes the most sense to you both (or seems the most fun!). If no single solution presents itself, both of you should roll a dice, and whoever rolls highers gets to choose what happens. Then you can get on with the fighting."

OR IN SHORT... behave like adults and talk it out without having them to hold your hand like a child.

Nothing about the stupid rules is ambiguous, and is NOT covered by that.

Even if you did use that... Oh great, on a 4+ I have to now dance like a prick.

If you don't want to dance you can either not use The Masque.

Don't dance and don't get the rerolls.

Or just man up and dance your heart out.

 Grimtuff wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Show me where it says this. Go on, I'll wait.

#

page 20... white dwarf... and I quote word for word.

"The most important rule"

"In a game as detailed nd wide-ranging as warhammer age of sigmar, there may be times when you are not sure exactly how to resolve a situation that has come up during play. When this happens, have a quick chat with your opponent, and apply the solution that makes the most sense to you both (or seems the most fun!). If no single solution presents itself, both of you should roll a dice, and whoever rolls highers gets to choose what happens. Then you can get on with the fighting."

OR IN SHORT... behave like adults and talk it out without having them to hold your hand like a child.

Nothing about the stupid rules is ambiguous, and is NOT covered by that.

Even if you did use that... Oh great, on a 4+ I have to now dance like a prick.

the "most important" rule applies to before and during the game itself, ask your GW manager... so if you do not like the jumping around rule, talk with your opponent, tell him your reasons, figure something out and if he refuses... stop playing and find another opponent, over time no one will play with the prancing pony... also notice that the most important rule says "situations" and not "rules" so there is no ambiguity of the rules... only situations which include whether or not to accept the silly role-playing rules, which I by the way like

For all of the AoS supporters who are getting defensive about its detractors calling the game :childish", I suggest you do the following. Take a copy of the rules, show it to any sane and competent person over the age of 21 and ask if they find it "childish". I think you will be upset by the answer.
What it really comes down to is that the game has made a huge change in both tone and play. Some like it for various reasons, others hate it and most people just dont care. What you are getting on this thread is people from the love/hate camps which will never see eye to eye on the subject. Both parties are rather passionate at the moment for many reasons. But the success or failure of AoS will not hang on either group. It will hang on the actions of the people in the middle, the ones not on this thread.

I myself am a bit more at ease after browising several websites and seeing 90% of the WH40K player base would view these changes in a negative light. It keeps my hope up AoS wont infect WH40k.

Table wrote:

For all of the AoS supporters who are getting defensive about its detractors calling the game :childish", I suggest you do the following. Take a copy of the rules, show it to any sane and competent person over the age of 21 and ask if they find it "childish". I think you will be upset by the answer.
What it really comes down to is that the game has made a huge change in both tone and play. Some like it for various reasons, others hate it and most people just dont care. What you are getting on this thread is people from the love/hate camps which will never see eye to eye on the subject. Both parties are rather passionate at the moment for many reasons. But the success or failure of AoS will not hang on either group. It will hang on the actions of the people in the middle, the ones not on this thread.

I myself am a bit more at ease after browising several websites and seeing 90% of the WH40K player base would view these changes in a negative light. It keeps my hope up AoS wont infect WH40k.

I did that once and the person looked at me and said "why the hell are you playing with little toy monsters" so I ran back home and cried my eyes out painting my little toy monsters, my tears gave the paint job a nice hue of "blue"

You know, I think the same thing about Cards Against Humanity... and whenever I point that out all of my sane, competent, adult friends tell me that's the fun of it.

And then we have a good time.

These same friends wouldn't call AoS childish because the rules are too complex

Table wrote:

For all of the AoS supporters who are getting defensive about its detractors calling the game :childish", I suggest you do the following. Take a copy of the rules, show it to any sane and competent person over the age of 21 and ask if they find it "childish". I think you will be upset by the answer.

You try doing it with a copy of 8th edition, or 40k, or Warmachine, or Infinity, or Flames of War... I think you'll get the exact same answer.

 Brotherjanus wrote:
These rules are GW giving the finger to people that want to play a serious tournament game. I think they are awesome.

Cause alienating any of your customers is great.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If you are playing against the designer's intent

Writer intent is irrelevant when it comes to fiction. The actual produced work is what matters, and what it can be judged by.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That's an opinion

No really, you finally figured out what an opinion is, congratulations.

 XT-1984 wrote:
If you don't want to dance you can either not use The Masque.

If you don't want me to point out that the rules are obnoxiously stupid, stop defending them as if you're pretending they're not obnoxiously stupid.

Well Melissia if a couple of special rules in a game of toy soldiers really upsets you, I think you should count your blessings.

Besides, everything is optional. I'm sure if you ask your opponent nicely they will gladly let you use the rules if it means that much to you.

If you were playing me I would be fair meet you half way and say you can have your rerolls if your legs are hairier than mine.

bitethythumb wrote:

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

as you said, everyone has their own version of "fun"... so stop hating the people who think this is fun stop calling them children for playing a childrens game

Yes everyone has different opinions on whats fun, I view that kind of fun childish. It is still well within what I said about everyone having their own opinion. It is my right to see certain types of fun in a certain light personally as much as it is anyone else to see that type of fun a different way.

I see jumping around shouting out things and kneeling down to win a round as childish.
If someone else sees that as just fun and not childish thats their rights too, fun is in the eye of the beholder, neither is wrong. I happen to fall one side, someone might fall on the other.
All it does is effect what we do with this new system now.

I see people who are serious about a game of goblins and dragons that they think is "tactical" as silly and anal... seeing them get angry or mad for failing a dice roll is both sad and childish in my eyes... having an epic mustache is epic though... seems to me like you do not have a mustache... seriously though, was warhammer 8th in your eyes and adult game? and not childish because they did not have role-playing elements to it? do you not have the ability to "ignore" the rules you deem "childish" or do you need the big GW to hold your hand and tell you how to play your game of goblins and dragons because it has always and always will be a childish game... no matter what edition.

Brother, you have very limited "street cred" on Dakka to be calling people out like this. People (adults) have spent THOUSANDS of Dollars, Euroes, and Pounds on this game. This represents a sea change on what attracted folks to this originally. GW was THE HANDS DOWN LEADER in TTWG. They are surrendering market share here. It is a complete ABANDONING of a business plan that made them the the 3rd largest game producer in the world (distantly 3rd behind Hasbro and Mattel).

I am talking business here as a fething adult. This is financial suicide. I can't think of a company that has knowingly abandoned a previously successful business model, while bragging "we don't do market research", and SIMULTANEOUSLY alienating their largest consumer demographic. Kirby out by 2017, leaving GW in shambles and loss of IP to some hedge fund. Plus golden parachute. Mark my words.

You joined yesterday did you?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


I believe that Bay does an excellent job at making the movie that he intends. None better. Judged against that, and considering the box office takes, his movies *are* good. End of discussion.

You don't get the point and thus make the exact same mistake again. What you like doesn't matter. What I like doesn't matter. We're...I am referring to objective standards here. As stated before, with AoS, people will like it. That's super okay and I don't think anyone wants to get in their way. Objectively, they're bad. Hands down.They are incomplete, they don't have a balance mechanism of any sort and they require house-ruling to be playable. That's objectively bad for a game. What you like or not is not up for debate.

 doktor_g wrote:
I am talking business here as a fething adult. This is financial suicide. I can't think of a company that has knowingly abandoned a previously successful business model, while bragging "we don't do market research", and SIMULTANEOUSLY alienating their largest consumer demographic. Kirby out by 2017, leaving GW in shambles and loss of IP to some hedge fund. Plus golden parachute. Mark my words.

If you think that bitter old Fantasy players were GW's largest demographic up until yesterday, you really are in no position to lecture anyone about business

Table wrote:

For all of the AoS supporters who are getting defensive about its detractors calling the game :childish", I suggest you do the following. Take a copy of the rules, show it to any sane and competent person over the age of 21 and ask if they find it "childish". I think you will be upset by the answer.

I think if you were take any set of mandolly, RPG or party game rules to a person over the age of 21, they will find it "childish", and that answer would be FINE BY ME.

Games should be fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


I believe that Bay does an excellent job at making the movie that he intends. None better. Judged against that, and considering the box office takes, his movies *are* good. End of discussion.

You don't get the point and thus make the exact same mistake again. What you like doesn't matter. What I like doesn't matter. We're...I am referring to objective standards here. As stated before, with AoS, people will like it. That's super okay and I don't think anyone wants to get in their way. Objectively, they're bad. Hands down.They are incomplete, they don't have a balance mechanism of any sort and they require house-ruling to be playable. That's objectively bad for a game. What you like or not is not up for debate.

It is objectively stupid for you to claim that "balance" is somehow required.

 Grimtuff wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


If you are playing against the designer's intent, then that is your problem for not adapting the rules to your peculiar play practices.

Intend and execution are two vastly different things. Michael Bay certainly wants to make "good" movies. Does that make those good movies?

Flaws have been pointed out in the previous threads multiple times. Incompletion of rules, particular loopholes (e.g. "rolling" the 13 with the Bell), etc.

Michael Bay makes movies, movies are made for profit, Michael Bay makes a lot of profit therefore Michael Bay makes good movies....

Popularity of something is not indicative of quality.

nope, but it sure is an indication of success...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doktor_g wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

as you said, everyone has their own version of "fun"... so stop hating the people who think this is fun stop calling them children for playing a childrens game

Yes everyone has different opinions on whats fun, I view that kind of fun childish. It is still well within what I said about everyone having their own opinion. It is my right to see certain types of fun in a certain light personally as much as it is anyone else to see that type of fun a different way.

I see jumping around shouting out things and kneeling down to win a round as childish.
If someone else sees that as just fun and not childish thats their rights too, fun is in the eye of the beholder, neither is wrong. I happen to fall one side, someone might fall on the other.
All it does is effect what we do with this new system now.

I see people who are serious about a game of goblins and dragons that they think is "tactical" as silly and anal... seeing them get angry or mad for failing a dice roll is both sad and childish in my eyes... having an epic mustache is epic though... seems to me like you do not have a mustache... seriously though, was warhammer 8th in your eyes and adult game? and not childish because they did not have role-playing elements to it? do you not have the ability to "ignore" the rules you deem "childish" or do you need the big GW to hold your hand and tell you how to play your game of goblins and dragons because it has always and always will be a childish game... no matter what edition.

Brother, you have very limited "street cred" on Dakka to be calling people out like this. People (adults) have spent THOUSANDS of Dollars, Euroes, and Pounds on this game. This represents a sea change on what attracted folks to this originally. GW was THE HANDS DOWN LEADER in TTWG. They are surrendering market share here. It is a complete ABANDONING of a business plan that made them the the 3rd largest game producer in the world (distantly 3rd behind Hasbro and Mattel).

I am talking business here as a fething adult. This is financial suicide. I can't think of a company that has knowingly abandoned a previously successful business model, while bragging "we don't do market research", and SIMULTANEOUSLY alienating their largest consumer demographic. Kirby out by 2017, leaving GW in shambles and loss of IP to some hedge fund. Plus golden parachute. Mark my words.

You joined yesterday did you?

well I have been a warhammer player and fan since 1996 and I do have an older dakka account I just forgot the password and most likely my email has changed and I do not remember my account name at that, I also have a warseer account and had an old GW forum account before it got closed down.... cause I had a period of "getting on with life" for several years, AoS got me back in though... and let be clear here, fantasy was dying, 40k is what is making GW money, and I have been hearing "GW is going to die" for years now... still has not happened and will not happen... funnily GW could have just ended fantasy and focused on 40k which is there number one money maker and that would be A SMART BUSINESS MOVE but no, they want to try and reinvent fantasy for the new generation.

People who invested thousands into tiny toy monsters should have been fully aware of the risks, no one forced them to buy anything and no one promised them a "game for life" which would also be a stupid business movie... heck I lived through WOOD elves and BRETS not getting an army book for years, I lived through the death of Inquisitor etc...

as an ADULT you should realise that keeping fantasy alive and promising a game for life are both RISKY AND STUPID business moves that do more harm than good, fantasy should be dead but because GW cares (a little) it stayed alive...because lets be honest, if GW just ended fantasy tomorrow, nothing would happen to them, they would just refocus on 40k and sell more :/

by the way, its very childish to disregard my opinion because I am "new"... I am an OLD GW fan... just because I have not been as active on DAKKA does in no way invalidate my opinion.... i

I realize that AoS is an extremely polarizing release but...

...RULE #1 EVERYONE - ALL THE TIME.

Thanks!

 JohnHwangDD wrote:



It is objectively stupid for you to claim that "balance" is somehow required.

Seeing that you not only dodge the point, but also resort to personal insults, I consider your point withdrawn. Glad we got that settled.

THIS POST WAS EDITED

THIS POST WAS EDITED

PREVIOUS VERSION ABOVE

/e (=edit): Arf, saw Alpharius post too late.

Dude, you're the one who's mad that the screwdriver isn't a hammer...

 XT-1984 wrote:
Well Melissia if a couple of special rules in a game of toy soldiers really upsets you

My disliking the rules should not offend you enough that you feel the need to resort to "oh she's just emotional and upset" fallacious tripe.

The reasoning behind my disliking the rules is perfectly clear and logical. If you have no argument against it and have to resort to this crap, just admit I'm right rather than trying to drag this out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Dude, you're the one who's mad that the screwdriver isn't a hammer...

You're clearly not Orky enough. Everything's a hammer if you hit it against the nail hard enough.

Jokes aside, I find your opinion to be asinine and baseless. These are supposed to be professional writers, not fanfic authors.

 Alpharius wrote:
I realize that AoS is an extremely polarizing release but...

...RULE #1 EVERYONE - ALL THE TIME.

Thanks!

Do not talk about AoS?

Well, Ms. Asinine & Baseless, it's a darn good thing for you that GW is reading this thread and they're going to take your complaint Very, Very Seriously (tm).

You fail to have a point in that last post, never mind actually make one.

Whether or not GW is listening does not change the validity of what I have said.

I am of the conclusion that it is pointless to continue "discussion" here. The funny rules are still funny, and I still applaud GW for making the game that they want.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


I believe that Bay does an excellent job at making the movie that he intends. None better. Judged against that, and considering the box office takes, his movies *are* good. End of discussion.

You don't get the point and thus make the exact same mistake again. What you like doesn't matter. What I like doesn't matter. We're...I am referring to objective standards here. As stated before, with AoS, people will like it. That's super okay and I don't think anyone wants to get in their way. Objectively, they're bad. Hands down.They are incomplete, they don't have a balance mechanism of any sort and they require house-ruling to be playable. That's objectively bad for a game. What you like or not is not up for debate.

I played a game today and it didn't require houseruling. It also was unbalanced, which was fine with both myself and my opponent. So I don't think they're bad, because what makes rules "bad" according to you is different from what makes rules "bad" according to me.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I am of the conclusion that it is pointless to continue "discussion" here.

Then stop having it? No one is forcing you to post here.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The unfunny rules are still unfunny

Fixed that for you

 RiTides wrote:

 Hulksmash wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
I could see that too, Hulk, although there has been a huge 3rd party model market for fantasy, with people using them for GW rules. If that now shifts to Kings of War, GW will definitely lose market share, although my army includes a mix of their models and other manufacturers (mostly others, because I'm me ). Whether AoS model sales are enough to make up for that will be interesting...

I do think the question "what market share?" is appropriate. When an entire line sells less than a single product of your other line I'm thinking there isn't much they can lose. I can't remember the last time I saw or heard of someone locally (and we're a pretty big gaming area with even WFB having 2 GT level events a year) starting a new fantasy army. Anything that produces any kind of movement (and I think AoS will) is a going to up the percentage of Fantasy models purchased. Even with people jumping to KoW. In fact I'd argue that having WFB players jump to KoW might actually increase sales as people round out GW WFB armies to match units in KoW. Possibly making their first purchase in quite some time though that's just a guess.

That's very possible. I've certainly bought some things to round out my army, but they're non-GW (Titan Forge and Gamezone).

JohnHwangDD, I disagree, at least as far as rules go... I play all these games, and my warmahordes friends aren't "page 5" competitive sort. You can have fun with any ruleset, but with AoS, you're actually stuck with silliness for all settings.

That's not as big of a deal as the no points / balance issue, though. I don't think it will make for a game people are willing to invest a lot in long term building up armies like they would with a better ruleset, so while a reboot was sorely needed, I can't think of a way they could have done it that would be as bad as this. The rules read like they made them up while having a few, so it's funny to try, but that's about it...

As a dwarf player, am I really OK that my one wound models are valued the same as my friend's four-wound ogres? Or a small dwarf character is the same as a Bloodthirster? I can have fun without a company "forcing" me to by not balancing their units in any way lol.

The problem with complaining about the lack of a points balancing system is that some of the best made games in wargaming history lack such a thing. I don't particularly like AoS, but balance should be provided in scenario design. The provided scenario is a perfectly good way to learn the rules, after that players can and should use their imaginations to come up with ideas.

On the main subject, these rules are asinine. If I'm playing a campaign with my friends, we don't need rules about kneeling and insults. If we are drunk enough to be screaming challenges at one another, I doupt we'll be able to remember to reroll. These rules will either be ignored or always used.

At my place we are probably going to make it optional, all rules that require something of age/facial-hair are going to be a d2 though.

 Melissia wrote:
Everything's a hammer if you hit it against the nail hard enough.

Or rather everything is a nail if you only have a hammer.

On that note, can folks please simmer down now. Rule One around these parts is Be Polite. Yes, even when GW has a big release. Thanks!

 Manchu wrote:
On that note, can folks please simmer down now. Rule One around these parts is Be Polite. Yes, even when GW has a big release. Thanks!

And yet we're talking about a game which explicitly encourages you to insult your opponent.

Encourages you once.
For one model in the entire game.
And afaik no one has defended that rule's existence or said it's the best rule ever.

While we are talking about that game... we aren't playing it, so no need to try and get Wulfrik's re-rolls.

None of the games with silly, asinine rules that I can think of cost hundreds of dollars and take hundreds of hours to prepare the tokens to play. In short, party games don't cost GW prices and aren't build, paint and play.

Comparing AoS to Munchkin and Cards Against Humanity is pointless and a bit silly because neither of these games require the money and time input. For me, and possibly others as well, I expect a bit more from something that I have to put so much of my personal time and resources into; a silly board game or card game requires nothing more than pulling the tokens and apparatus out of the box and playing; AoS at a minimum requires you to build the models and much more if you want to paint them.

"Here, buy this $60 model, then spend 20 hours lovingly assembling it and painting it, now go act like an absolute idiot in order to use its special ability."

No thanks and I dare anyone to point to another game that would require that level of pecuniary and time input with such a ludicrous output.

Let's see how successful CAH and Munchkin would be if they charged $125 for the starter and more later for supplements. That's the mentality here.

It's sad and it makes me think that the GW design team have really lost touch with who the majority of their market is.

I always hated some of the more... enthusastic aspectsof gaming. Shouting WAAAGH at Games Day, accents during RPGS, whatever.

Some people find it fun, some don't, but I think for me I don't like the idea of "mandatory fun," the sort of attitude that you can be compelled to have fun. I also don't like arbitrary rules: things to have results unrelated to true chance, skill, or anything that can be managed or controlled.

Games like that have their place, as many in this thread have pointed out.. But people built WFB armies for a very different game, and it's not a shock they'd be bummed out by the complete shift in tone and genre of the game.

Some people like the new game, and that's great, but mocking people that saw literally thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of work lose enormous personal value is just churlish.

I don't think anyone is mocking them.

I just think their rage and unveiled hatred is unwarranted.

If the game is that bad, then 8th Ed. Fantasy won't die out. If the game isn't that bad, then why all the unrestrained vehemence?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't think anyone is mocking them.

I just think their rage and unveiled hatred is unwarranted.

If the game is that bad, then 8th Ed. Fantasy won't die out. If the game isn't that bad, then why all the unrestrained vehemence?

Unsupported games die. They always do. Sure, a few guys might keep it alive in a garage, or at a major con, but you lose all new blood when a game goes unsupported. Even massively popular games with major fan based support are barely on life support: things like Epic 40k, Mordheim, Necromunda, or BFG. And they at least had token support from GW for years after their salad days. So lets not pretend that 8th edition WFB is going to be the exception to that rule. (Side bar: one possible exception is Pathfinder, which effectively was D&D 3.75 or something, when everybody hated 4th. Of course, Pathfinder is a professional product, supported by new releases, still distinct from D&D 3.5, and officially licensed.)

And even if the rage and hatred is, in your very personal opinion, unwarranted, what of it? Do you think telling people how they should feel helps?

Would it not be more noble to allow people some cathartic venting of emotion?

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
And afaik no one has defended that rule's existence or said it's the best rule ever.

People in this thread have said the rules are good. I agree no insults are necessary. But this part isn't true

At first i thought GW is going to make a game with the "easy to learn hard to master" philosophy which made me interested in whfb the first time ever.

After reading the rules and the comments about them i came to the conclusion that its more of a "easy to play hard to balance" philosophy which let me down a lot and killed my interest in the game. I will of course play some test games to be sure about it but im already foresee what will happen.

The silly rules are just the icing on the cake. We're a group of grown ups. Maybe playing with toy soldiers make uns kinda childish in general. But thats the kind of childishness i still like. If i want to have fun by acting like an idiot i simply buy some drugs.

Regarding unsupported games, I agree, they always dwindle away... the only exception I can think of in wargaming to a certain extent is Bloodbowl. I'm always amazed how many Indiegogo campaigns and the like there are to make crazy teams. I get the feeling it might be more popular internationally than in the US? Kind of jealous of that, actually!

8th dying out isn't really dependent on AoS being good or bad - without support from GW, and with such a high barrier to entry due to model costs and all the army books being OOP, it most definitely will... I'm switching to Kings of War and not looking back . I've seen others who are looking at Darklands (Mierce) and I'm sure there will be a subset who continue to play 8th ed. But for me, I want to go with what I can most easily find a game / tournament in 5 years from now, and I'm betting on Kings of War since I at least know the company is intending to support it... and there's at least one Dakkanaut near me who plays it now (Polonius!).

In my view WHFB already was dieing out because such a lot of players stopped it when GW published 8th edition. Certainly it is difficult to believe that GW would have dropped a financially successful product given their continuing decline in sales year on year.

 RiTides wrote:
I want to go with what I can most easily find a game / tournament in 5 years from now, and I'm betting on Kings of War since I at least know the company is intending to support it...

Like you and others around here im choosing this point to jump the warhammer ship. I might casually collect 40k till they change that system completely like they did this one but Ive got my eyes set on Kings of war or War machine right now. Hell with not having to spend all that money on overpriced GW products might even invest in that Star wars Armada game.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In my view WHFB already was dieing out because such a lot of players stopped it when GW published 8th edition. Certainly it is difficult to believe that GW would have dropped a financially successful product given their continuing decline in sales year on year.

Given how big the market for their miniatures by non-players is supposed to be, I guess this isn't surprising. Make a game that can be played, come up with some basic rules in a long weekend, make 'em free, and go back to selling models.

Looking back at the Pathfinder model, though, I do wish they would allow another company to make the rules for the game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Frankly, I find it fantastic, because it reinforces the "this is a roleplaying game" attitude that I enjoy in my warhammers.

If I want to play a roleplaying game, I'll just go and do that.

However, when I play Warhammer, I want to play a miniatures game.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Frankly, I find it fantastic, because it reinforces the "this is a roleplaying game" attitude that I enjoy in my warhammers.

If I want to play a roleplaying game, I'll just go and do that.

However, when I play Warhammer, I want to play a miniatures game.

so play a miniature game but ignore those silly "abilities"... no one is forcing you to obey those rules to its core and I am pretty certain people who played 8th also edited some rules so that it was fair and made more sense... and just FYI those are "special" rules of heroes, not in the rulebook... you can LITERALLY ignore them, just fade them out, write over them etc... it will not affect the actual game in ANY way.. if someone tells you "BUT I WANT TO OBEY THOSE ABILITIES FOR THE HERO" tell them "can we not, I really do not want to" and if they refuse, find someone else to "play with"

Rather sad, WHFB used to be more "tactical" than 40k.

Seeing what the game has evolved into is really like pressing "restart": what existing players bought into is no-more, GW are now looking for a new player base. Good luck with no advertising and a rather angry veteran player base.

I am glad kings of war is around to take up the slack or the rage would have been a lot worse.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I played a game today and it didn't require houseruling.

I can say the same thing about every single game of 8th I've played, actually.

 Polonius wrote:
I always hated some of the more... enthusastic aspectsof gaming. Shouting WAAAGH at Games Day, accents during RPGS, whatever.

Some people find it fun, some don't, but I think for me I don't like the idea of "mandatory fun," the sort of attitude that you can be compelled to have fun. I also don't like arbitrary rules: things to have results unrelated to true chance, skill, or anything that can be managed or controlled.

Games like that have their place, as many in this thread have pointed out.. But people built WFB armies for a very different game, and it's not a shock they'd be bummed out by the complete shift in tone and genre of the game.

Some people like the new game, and that's great, but mocking people that saw literally thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of work lose enormous personal value is just churlish.

those "shout waaaagh" are not rules but abilities which can be ignored by using cognitive reasoning... no one is forcing "mandatory" fun, if you go to a games DAY I am sure like all other game days they have their own rules and regulations, I remember very clearly some tournies did not allow certain models or armies etc.. that can easily be applied to this game... by simple wording "These abilities/champion are not allowed to be used"... and done, no problem there.

if you also notice, most of the "funny" role-play rules are attached to characters from the old world, I assume they did so because they will in time be phased out for new FRESH faces with more serious take on things.

---
Personally I like those rules because they add a little RPG to a miniature game and I love RPGs (d&d days), is it tournament worthy, I doubt it... but then as repeated 1000s of times, tournaments can alter the rules/abilities/units to suit their "flavour" of gaming.

bitethythumb wrote:
Personally I like those rules because they add a little RPG to a miniature game and I love RPGs (d&d days),

I love RPGs, too(currently playing in Werewolf, Pathfinder, and IKRPG campaigns, scheduling is hectic to say the least) and if people wanna do this stuff during games for roleplay, more power to 'em.

They still shouldn't be actual rules.

 Talizvar wrote:
Rather sad, WHFB used to be more "tactical" than 40k.

Seeing what the game has evolved into is really like pressing "restart": what existing players bought into is no-more, GW are now looking for a new player base. Good luck with no advertising and a rather angry veteran player base.

I am glad kings of war is around to take up the slack or the rage would have been a lot worse.

they really had no choice, warhammer was a dieing game that was not selling... they could have just scrapped fantasy and focused on 40k and that would have made more financial sense but at least they are "trying" to restart the franchise, sure its very "simple" at the moment but GW is about making good quality miniatures which they are most of the time leaders (the new minis look amazing).. AoS allows for users to focus more on the collecting aspect of the game (which has always been the main part of the hobby, do not kid yourself its all about the painting and conversions) rather than the gaming which is not bad if you ask me, its surely different but as we all know in a year at most they will release another book with more rules and then another and another and in time it will grow into a more tactical game but the whole point will be that YOU CAN CHOOSE if you want it to be tactical in nature or fun beer RPG style.

More or less GW just said

"ok lets start from the ground up fellas"

their miniature are still amazing and that is where most of their sales will come from and in time their fantasy line will be more adaptable to suit MORE users needs, if you still want to play 8th, 7th, 6th etc.. nothing stops you... the rules are still in your hands

Heard about new fantasy rule set, thought about starting into it.
Saw rules. Said NOPE.

 Platuan4th wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:
Personally I like those rules because they add a little RPG to a miniature game and I love RPGs (d&d days),

I love RPGs, too(currently playing in Werewolf, Pathfinder, and IKRPG campaigns, scheduling is hectic to say the least) and if people wanna do this stuff during games for roleplay, more power to 'em.

They still shouldn't be actual rules.

but they are not rules.. they are special abilities within certain characters... just say "no to these characters" Tournaments have been banning certain characters and units for years, if someone says "I want to use him" tell him why you do not want to play against it etc and if you cannot agree, well then why play against each other?... and remember the "MOST IMPORTANT RULE" talk to your opponent which is an ACTUAL rule.

 Platuan4th wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:
Personally I like those rules because they add a little RPG to a miniature game and I love RPGs (d&d days),

I love RPGs, too(currently playing in Werewolf, Pathfinder, and IKRPG campaigns, scheduling is hectic to say the least) and if people wanna do this stuff during games for roleplay, more power to 'em.

They still shouldn't be actual rules.

QFT. And not all of the silliness is limited to characters. Grail Knights require you to shout "for the lady" or some such nonsense every turn of combat. Yes, we can ignore the stupidity in most cases (obviously, I won't play against someone who is puerile enough to attempt to require me to do such things) it's the fact that I've invested thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours into a miniature wargame that has now been converted into this.....mess (for lack of a better word).

The sad thing is that there is about 30% of a real, functional, potentially fun wargame hidden in there.

niv-mizzet wrote:
Heard about new fantasy rule set, thought about starting into it.
Saw rules. Said NOPE.

they are not rules, they are abilities of certain characters which are not forced for you to use.... the characters nor the abilities.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 agnosto wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:
Personally I like those rules because they add a little RPG to a miniature game and I love RPGs (d&d days),

I love RPGs, too(currently playing in Werewolf, Pathfinder, and IKRPG campaigns, scheduling is hectic to say the least) and if people wanna do this stuff during games for roleplay, more power to 'em.

They still shouldn't be actual rules.

QFT. And not all of the silliness is limited to characters. Grail Knights require you to shout "for the lady" or some such nonsense every turn of combat. Yes, we can ignore the stupidity in most cases (obviously, I won't play against someone who is puerile enough to attempt to require me to do such things) it's the fact that I've invested thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours into a miniature wargame that has now been converted into this.....mess (for lack of a better word).

The sad thing is that there is about 30% of a real, functional, potentially fun wargame hidden in there.

who forced you to invest so much money into the game? and what was GW supposed to do to a dieing game? keep on working on it because a minority (you and others) have invested thousands into it?

 ToxicBox wrote:
On the bright side, basically every unit is viable.

On the dark side, every unit has a cookie cutter version of a unit in a different army


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bitethythumb wrote:
and what was GW supposed to do to a dieing game? keep on working on it because a minority (you and others) have invested thousands into it?

GW was killing it on thier own, yearly price hikes, lack of promoting the game, poor rule sets, ignore current (pre AOS) customer base.

I'll be moving on (as if anyone cared). If I wante dto play skirmish I'd play warmahoards, Wrath of kings, malifaux.

This will be amusing, if you have that particular mindset, for a few months.

Eventually the broken p2w will kick in, and you'll look at all the money you spent and realise just how much you've been had.

It seems GW have finally given up.

bitethythumb wrote:
but they are not rules.. they are special abilities within certain characters... just say "no to these characters" Tournaments have been banning certain characters and units for years, if someone says "I want to use him" tell him why you do not want to play against it etc and if you cannot agree, well then why play against each other?... and remember the "MOST IMPORTANT RULE" talk to your opponent which is an ACTUAL rule.

I'm not sure you know what "rules" means. If a model has an ability, that's a rule. Saying that you can choose not to really get the most out of a model is a bleak choice, but I suppose a technical one.

I don't care overly much, I sold me Fantasy years ago and I'm enjoying the hell out of Kings of War. I've explained why I don't care for it, and while it matters for little, I doubt you'll change my mind.

bitethythumb wrote:


who forced you to invest so much money into the game? and what was GW supposed to do to a dieing game? keep on working on it because a minority (you and others) have invested thousands into it?

What a nonsensical point. Are you implying that I should be happy that my investment is no longer of the same perceived value as I held it even a week before? As some have pointed out, I'm in mourning of an old friend, a game that I've spent a great deal of personal time and resources in over the years and has now become unrecognizable.

As others have pointed out, the death of the game is not the customers' fault but the company which made the game; they could have performed some research, discovered what was making the game less attractive when compared to other company's offerings and then fixed them, instead they chose to "throw the baby out with the bath water."

 agnosto wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:


who forced you to invest so much money into the game? and what was GW supposed to do to a dieing game? keep on working on it because a minority (you and others) have invested thousands into it?

What a nonsensical point. Are you implying that I should be happy that my investment is no longer of the same perceived value as I held it even a week before? As some have pointed out, I'm in mourning of an old friend, a game that I've spent a great deal of personal time and resources in over the years and has now become unrecognizable.

As others have pointed out, the death of the game is not the customers' fault but the company which made the game; they could have performed some research, discovered what was making the game less attractive when compared to other company's offerings and then fixed them, instead they chose to "throw the baby out with the bath water."

Yeah, I don't know what is so absurdly difficult about saying, "that sucks that you've lost the game you like. I'm enjoying it, and I hope you'll find another use for you models, but I feel bad that you won't be able to play the way you used to."

When I first saw the pictures of the Sigmarines and heard that it was going to be a skirmish game, and with something actually happening in the storyline, I was interested, I thought yeah, I could play fantasy space marines in a smaller scale game.

I didn't expect it to be completely troll. A disappointment, but luckily no money or time off me. So sorry that the game got ruined for those who cared.

If you think AOS will play all right without the Beard Rules, play it without, or house rule that they work without having a Beard.

Beard rules aren't why people dislike AoS, they're simply a very notorious shift in tone that is easy to harp on.

They also seem very committed to making players not take the game seriously, which while refreshing for some, isn't comforting to people that have taken it seriously.

Just as a matter of word choice, it is easy to see that AoS is challenging a deeply entrenched POV; one that needs to be challenged and deserves to be. AoS is not for people who take gaming seriously? Ahem, anyone who invests the huge amount of money and time to get minis to the table self-evidently takes gaming seriously. I don't know if it started on the internet or what, but this assumption that competitive gamers are the ones who really take gaming "seriously" is ... myopic and conceited.

 Manchu wrote:
one that needs to be challenged and deserves to be.

I'm confused, are those who stick to the values and what we have learnt of the system over the past 20+ now the bad guys for not suddenly changing their deeply rooted and understandable connection to the old fantasy system? I wasn't aware we're running on some kind of adapt or get out rule now AoS dropped as if all the old players are immediately the enemy and the outcasts ruining fantasy for everyone. Fantasy has been out for years, AoS for two days but its the fantasy players been unreasonable when it comes to the change?? You make it out like anyone who sees fantasy through old eyes is somehow toxic to the community and game itself a bad POV as it were. At least thats what im getting from that line, hence my confusion.

I think you need to be a bit more understanding towards those who simply don't wish to or can't throw away how they played the game just overnight after maybe even 20 years.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
as if all the old players are immediately the enemy and the outcasts

First, ranting about bad guys and enemies and outcasts ... this is totally misplaced. I am calling out the tendency to confuse a POV with reality. Which brings me to the second point: "old players" is a completely relative term. People did not always play miniatures games with point-based list building geared to competitive pick-up gaming/tournament play. For many miniatures gamers, these concepts are not only relatively new, they are also totally misguided. There are "grognards" who look down on anyone not playing a well-researched historical scenario with period-accurate models down to the colors of regimental uniform facings. For them, whippersnappers writing the most broken pixie warriors list are not "serious gamers." Yep -- that is a condescending POV. So is the idea that the only "serious gamers" out there are ones getting their jollies breaking the pixie warriors army book.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
I think you need to be a bit more understanding towards those who simply don't wish to or can't throw away how they played the game just overnight after maybe even 20 years.

Whether you throw away your favorite game is up to you and your gaming group.

 Manchu wrote:

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
as if all the old players are immediately the enemy and the outcasts

First, ranting about bad guys and enemies and outcasts ... this is totally misplaced. I am calling out the tendency to confuse a POV with reality. Which brings me to the second point: "old players" is a completely relative term. People did not always play miniatures games with point-based list building geared to competitive pick-up gaming/tournament play. For many miniatures gamers, these concepts are not only relatively new, they are also totally misguided. There are "grognards" who look down on anyone not playing a well-researched historical scenario with period-accurate models down to the colors of regimental uniform facings. For them, whippersnappers writing the most broken pixie warriors list are not "serious gamers." Yep -- that is a condescending POV. So is the idea that the only "serious gamers" out there are ones getting their jollies breaking the pixie warriors army book.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
I think you need to be a bit more understanding towards those who simply don't wish to or can't throw away how they played the game just overnight after maybe even 20 years.

Whether you throw away your favorite game is up to you and your gaming group.

I dunno... it's been a solid generation of point based games, even for historicals. Add even then, the scenarios were rigorous in their intentional lack of balance.

I think we define "serious" a lot of ways, but I think that when people say that WFB 8 was "serious" while AOS is not is that WFB 8 attempted to at least make the game more than idle amusement. That skill and gamesmanship and, dare I say, tactics were important. AOS is a pretty deliberate attempt to reinforce that the game is not more than a pasttime.

Miniatures wargaming generally, and not just a game like AoS, is as much an "idle amusement" as anything that takes a huge amount of money, time, and effort can be.

There are other games for "serious gamers" and you can even use those thousands of dollars of investment in them.

Why are you so committed to making AoS conform to the requirements of those other games (and earlier editions)?

 Manchu wrote:
Miniatures wargaming generally, and not just a game like AoS, is as much an "idle amusement" as anything that takes a huge amount of money, time, and effort can be.

Sure, if we're comparing it to curing cancer or saving kittens, but not all recreations are idle. Playing soccer in a league and playing FIFA 2015 on the xbox are both recreation, but one has tangible benefits and builds skills, the other is more literally idle.

You can argue it's a different of degree, but not of kind, but Warhammer had a pretty sharp learning curve when it came to learning the tactics of the game. It was a more demanding, and thus more potentially rewarding, pasttime.

 Polonius wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Miniatures wargaming generally, and not just a game like AoS, is as much an "idle amusement" as anything that takes a huge amount of money, time, and effort can be.

Sure, if we're comparing it to curing cancer or saving kittens, but not all recreations are idle. Playing soccer in a league and playing FIFA 2015 on the xbox are both recreation, but one has tangible benefits and builds skills, the other is more literally idle.

You can argue it's a different of degree, but not of kind, but Warhammer had a pretty sharp learning curve when it came to learning the tactics of the game. It was a more demanding, and thus more potentially rewarding, pasttime.

And there are still games out there that you can use your minis for that are demanding. Why try to shoehorn AoS into that mould?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
There are other games for "serious gamers" and you can even use those thousands of dollars of investment in them.

Why are you so committed to making AoS conform to the requirements of those other games (and earlier editions)?

What part of This. Just. Happened. is so hard for you to comprehend. Yes, I will eventually take my thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours time to another system but up until Friday of last week, I could have the same with GW. Obviously I can't now but which explains my, and others, "griping".

I remember the game Panzer Pranks, put out in the 1970s by Chaosium if I recall it correctly. It had comedy rules like being able to save up movement points from turn to turn. Combat resolution was by Paper, Scissors, Stone.

The thing is Panzer Pranks was conceived and named as a parody of serious Avalon Hill games like Panzer Leader. Anyone who played it understood that it was essentially a joke.

The Beard Rules in WHAOS look like a parody of WHFB and a mechanism to force players to caper about jester-like when they actually just want a game of fantasy battles. Which I think is a very ill-conceived idea and has been not unnaturally badly received by a section of the player base.

 agnosto wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
There are other games for "serious gamers" and you can even use those thousands of dollars of investment in them.

Why are you so committed to making AoS conform to the requirements of those other games (and earlier editions)?

What part of This. Just. Happened. is so hard for you to comprehend. Yes, I will eventually take my thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours time to another system but up until Friday of last week, I could have the same with GW. Obviously I can't now but which explains my, and others, "griping".

I mean, I get that you're in such a state of shock that it is hard for you to move to another system. But griping about it is just delaying your move away to the Promised Land of balance.

 Polonius wrote:
You can argue it's a different of degree, but not of kind, but Warhammer had a pretty sharp learning curve when it came to learning the tactics of the game. It was a more demanding, and thus more potentially rewarding, pasttime.

Couple of issues with this argument. Just generally speaking, games can be "demanding" without being more "rewarding." One way to describe this phenomenon is "inelegance." But more importantly, different kinds of gamers feel "rewarded" by different kinds of play. Just to use broad strokes examples, some people are more rewarded by executing carefully-laid plans while others are more rewarded by tackling developing situations. Some gamers actually feel more rewarded by the gameplay itself then the eventual result.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
when they actually just want a game of fantasy battles

They who? This is a tautological argument.

Unit1126PLL wrote:
And there are still games out there that you can use your minis for that are demanding. Why try to shoehorn AoS into that mould?

I dont' think anybody is trying to shoehorn AOS into a mold, rather, they are upset that AOS is not what they built a collection around. Also:

agnosto wrote:What part of This. Just. Happened. is so hard for you to comprehend. Yes, I will eventually take my thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours time to another system but up until Friday of last week, I could have the same with GW. Obviously I can't now but which explains my, and others, "griping".

It's good to have a clear, rational grasp on the issues of the day. It's an admirable trait.

It's also good to be at least a bit empathetic to others when they are upset.

It's not like AOS is a brand new game, or a parallel product, or an expansion. It's a system that replaces something that a good (albiet dwindling) number of people really enjoyed playing. Cut the people that lost a game they liked a bit of slack.

Is AOS a comedy game?

It is full of angels versus demons, saving or destroying the world through slaughter and blood. Plus having a beard or singing a song.

What are players meant to think?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I remember the game Panzer Pranks, put out in the 1970s by Chaosium if I recall it correctly. It had comedy rules like being able to save up movement points from turn to turn. Combat resolution was by Paper, Scissors, Stone.

The thing is Panzer Pranks was conceived and named as a parody of serious Avalon Hill games like Panzer Leader. Anyone who played it understood that it was essentially a joke.

The Beard Rules in WHAOS look like a parody of WHFB and a mechanism to force players to caper about jester-like when they actually just want a game of fantasy battles. Which I think is a very ill-conceived idea and has been not unnaturally badly received by a section of the player base.

Oh come now, who doesn't want to spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours on a game that's a simple farce?

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
You can argue it's a different of degree, but not of kind, but Warhammer had a pretty sharp learning curve when it came to learning the tactics of the game. It was a more demanding, and thus more potentially rewarding, pasttime.

Couple of issues with this argument. Just generally speaking, games can be "demanding" without being more "rewarding." One way to describe this phenomenon is "inelegance." But more importantly, different kinds of gamers feel "rewarded" by different kinds of play. Just to use broad strokes examples, some people are more rewarded by executing carefully-laid plans while others are more rewarded by tackling developing situations. Some gamers actually feel more rewarded by the gameplay itself then the eventual result

Well, i said potentially rewarding, but I that doesn't change the fact that not all games are equally idle as pasttimes. And decoupling demand and reward is fine, but I think the less demanding a game is the less overall reward is possible. That's why I said potential reward. But no matter how much you master, say, Munchkin, it's likely to be less rewarding than mastering D&D. If D&D 6th edition were a varient on Munckin, people would be very upset, because the arc of learning/mastering the game is much shorter, or at least very different.

I mean few of these games are serious, but I still contend that arguing that all games are equally frivolous is going to be tough. And AOS appears to be far more frivolous than WFB8.

My new biggest concern has shifted from dancing tomfoolery to nopoints and now to "even without all that this game kinda sucks"

Anyone finding this fun outside the novelty of the sheer wtf factor?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What are players meant to think?

Da same dey 'az alwayz dun. WAAAAAGH!

 Polonius wrote:
If D&D 6th edition were a varient on Munckin, people would be very upset, because the arc of learning/mastering the game is much shorter, or at least very different.

D&D provides a great example. A ton of people were very upset that 5E does not entail the game mastery elements of 3.X/Pathfinder and 4E. Some people are rewarded by digging through supplements to find correct feat progression to make a swinging-from-chandeliers "build." Other players are content to describe their PCs swinging from a chandelier as/when it comes up. I guess the latter is not particularly "demanding" compared to the former. To me, however, it is inestimably more rewarding.

Also, I completely understand why people whose preferred play style is no longer supported by THE COMPANY (GW, WotC, etc, etc) are upset. But ... it's not like some conspiracy against you and people like you. D&D provides another instructive example: when ruleplay became the dominant mode in the late 90s, roleplayers felt pushed out. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Thankfully, Pathfinder is available for people who don't like the older style of D&D that inspired 5E. For a good number of fantasy mass battles, KoW can play a similar role.

After going through a bunch of sites and watching a few battle reports online here and there, reading all the comments, it seems to be leaning unanimously among commenters towards two basic lines I keep hearing:

"Rules are sh**"

and

"Wheres the strategy, first two turns charge, rest of game melee mash in the middle of the board"

I can't imagine hearing these complaints from so many people including those who have played the game that it holds no weight or fact.

I guess what one finds all depends on who is looking ...

It cannot be denied. We liked this game. We liked it a lot, and we were not really expecting to. Yes, the lack of points is an issue and we will have to come up with something to handle our games if Games Workshop does not (kinda hoping for Scenario Scrolls to make an appearance). However, the game itself… we cannot really fault. It is simple, it works, and all the frilly bits are on the Warscrolls. There were no great rules debates during the game, other than those caused by our own ignorance (it was our first game) and those will disappear as we get to grips with the mechanics.

We were a bit surprised at the power of horses (two attacks each!), but they did get lucky rolls and probably reflect the use of cavalry quite well. We don’t see any issues developing there (other than me wanting to get Cold One Knights on the table!). The relative strengths of the other units seemed about right, from the Skeletons to the Treeman.

Undead armies could be quite potent due to their ability to summon, well, anything you have models for but, frankly, it does not seem to be as bad as it could be.

Overall, if you ignore the lack of points issue (and yes, I know that is a biggie), I would give this game a solid A grade.

https://ttgamingdiary.wordpress.com/2015/07/04/age-of-sigmar-battle-report-vampire-counts-vs-wood-elves/

 Manchu wrote:

Also, I completely understand why people whose preferred play style is no longer supported by THE COMPANY (GW, WotC, etc, etc) are upset. But ... it's not like some conspiracy against you and people like you. D&D provides another instructive example: when ruleplay became the dominant mode in the late 90s, roleplayers felt pushed out. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Thankfully, Pathfinder is available for people who don't like the older style of D&D that inspired 5E. For a good number of fantasy mass battles, KoW can play a similar role.

Of course. But initially you were arguing that it seemed wrong that one group of people got to define "serious" gaming, and I think while we agree that it's a very loaded term, there are differen play styles required and encouraged by different gaming systems. So a person that picked one system because of that style would feel less welcome in the new one.

the point is, AOS is more of a design revolution than it was an evolution from a prior system. While the game changed dramatically from 3rd edition through 8th, you still worked off the same basic principles: a common stat line, phase structure, etc. It also was, at its core, a game of manuever and list building. AOS is a very different beast, by all accounts.

Look at the change in 40K's fanbase in the three years since 6th edition dropped, and you could at least still use the same codices and rules throughout!

I'm just glad they're finally giving me in-game bonuses for doing the stuff I was going to do anyway.






Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to get back to my game.

Waaarrrgharbl waahrgarblewarghargh!

 Polonius wrote:
AOS is more of a design revolution than it was an evolution from a prior system

On that point, I entirely agree. To me, AoS is the "risky, all-out version" of what GW has been evolving toward in 40k.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I'm just glad they're finally giving me in-game bonuses for doing the stuff I was going to do anyway.

There is an honest point to be made here. Now, I'm not convinced it is a great design principle to encourage ... er, displays of enthusiasm with a mechanical bonus. But if I spend tons of time and money and effort building an army, you can bet I'm making "vwhooom!" noises when I use a spell.

However, I'm not going to become the bearded lady just because some dipgak British GW board member got a stick up his ass, nor am I going to put up with being put at a disadvantage becuase I'm unwilling to do so.

 Manchu wrote:
what GW has been evolving toward in 40k

Oh god don't say that

 Manchu wrote:
I guess what one finds all depends on who is looking ...

It cannot be denied. We liked this game. We liked it a lot, and we were not really expecting to. Yes, the lack of points is an issue and we will have to come up with something to handle our games if Games Workshop does not (kinda hoping for Scenario Scrolls to make an appearance). However, the game itself… we cannot really fault. It is simple, it works, and all the frilly bits are on the Warscrolls. There were no great rules debates during the game, other than those caused by our own ignorance (it was our first game) and those will disappear as we get to grips with the mechanics.

We were a bit surprised at the power of horses (two attacks each!), but they did get lucky rolls and probably reflect the use of cavalry quite well. We don’t see any issues developing there (other than me wanting to get Cold One Knights on the table!). The relative strengths of the other units seemed about right, from the Skeletons to the Treeman.

Undead armies could be quite potent due to their ability to summon, well, anything you have models for but, frankly, it does not seem to be as bad as it could be.

Overall, if you ignore the lack of points issue (and yes, I know that is a biggie), I would give this game a solid A grade.

https://ttgamingdiary.wordpress.com/2015/07/04/age-of-sigmar-battle-report-vampire-counts-vs-wood-elves/

Interesting write up, although oddly, it seemed like the game turned completely on if the glad riders could get lucky and kill all of the black knights in a turn.

For gamers that have little interest in outcome, this might be fine, but even from a narrative standpoint, I think it would be odd that a grinding stalemate on one flank turned lopsides, game over.

It's just one game, and thus just one data point, but it seems to me that they're being very generous in evaluating a mass combat system on it's engine (the basic resolution of moving, shooting, charging, magic), and giving it a complete pass on points balance and scenario.

Oddly, this might be a useful gaming system to hack for other games.

 Melissia wrote:
However, I'm not going to become the bearded lady just because some gak British GW board member got a stick up his ass, nor am I going to put up with being put at a disadvantage becuase I'm unwilling to do so.

We need some feminists on this, lots of "Game designers make beard rules, sexism!" and "excluding women the corruption and disconnect with its player base at the heart of GW" It has mileage.

 Melissia wrote:
I'm not going to become the bearded lady

The more important question would be, why spend your personal time hanging around someone who would insist you do something you don't want to as a condition of playing the game?

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
AOS is more of a design revolution than it was an evolution from a prior system

On that point, I entirely agree. To me, AoS is the "risky, all-out version" of what GW has been evolving toward in 40k.

That's a solid point, and frankly, I'd be more likely to play the 40k version of this game than the fantasy version, especially since I have KoW as a wicked simple/easy/fast/fun ranks and flanks game.

And why not use Fantasy, which was on life support anyway, to test out a complete revolution of their games?

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
what GW has been evolving toward in 40k

Oh god don't say that

The writing is surely on the wall. Sigmar has basically invaded the ruins of the World of Warhammer at the head of a Space Marine legion.

 Polonius wrote:
And why not use Fantasy, which was on life support anyway, to test out a complete revolution of their games?

Exactly. My guess is, Fantasy taken on its own was in the red. Let's be cynical for the sake of argument: GW does not know how to sell Fantasy but it does know how to sell 40k. It has been oft-repeated, and does not seem incredible, that SM alone outsell all of WHFB. AoS makes perfect sense from that angle; it makes even more sense if one suspects GW also wants to go this way with 40k but doesn't want to rock the boat quite so much with the star product line. Not yet, anyhow.

 Manchu wrote:
I guess what one finds all depends on who is looking ...

It cannot be denied. We liked this game. We liked it a lot, and we were not really expecting to. Yes, the lack of points is an issue and we will have to come up with something to handle our games if Games Workshop does not (kinda hoping for Scenario Scrolls to make an appearance). However, the game itself… we cannot really fault. It is simple, it works, and all the frilly bits are on the Warscrolls. There were no great rules debates during the game, other than those caused by our own ignorance (it was our first game) and those will disappear as we get to grips with the mechanics.

We were a bit surprised at the power of horses (two attacks each!), but they did get lucky rolls and probably reflect the use of cavalry quite well. We don’t see any issues developing there (other than me wanting to get Cold One Knights on the table!). The relative strengths of the other units seemed about right, from the Skeletons to the Treeman.

Undead armies could be quite potent due to their ability to summon, well, anything you have models for but, frankly, it does not seem to be as bad as it could be.

Overall, if you ignore the lack of points issue (and yes, I know that is a biggie), I would give this game a solid A grade.

https://ttgamingdiary.wordpress.com/2015/07/04/age-of-sigmar-battle-report-vampire-counts-vs-wood-elves/

Bolded for relevancy. The rules are four pages, how many games is it going to take for these people to "get to grips with the mechanics."

Second bolded section. Only if pike/spearmen get a bonus against them...

Ultimately, this is a fluff piece based upon one playthrough but who on God's creation admits to a big piece of the game being missing and still gives it an A? That right there tells me that these people either have an agenda or should otherwise be completely discounted. It's like Car and Driver saying, "We quite like the new Audi and though it's missing any suspension at all and the brakes didn't work, we give it a solid A."

 Manchu wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I'm not going to become the bearded lady

The more important question would be, why spend your personal time hanging around someone who would insist you do something you don't want to as a condition of playing the game?

Any of the three closest LGS locations near me require an hour of commute time total (IE, coming and going).

If the game wasn't full of gakky design flaws, I wouldn't have to worry about wasting half an hour of driving time plus however much waiting and setup time, then another half hour of driving back home just to find out that the random person I end up playing with is intent on enforcing bs official Games Workshop rules like this.

But it is. And I have to deal with it. And my way of dealing with it is to just not play at all and let my models sit on my shelf than waste my time rolling the dice with who I end up gaming with because GW put thoughtlessly misogynistic rules in place. Maybe GW's rules for dwarves will be better than their rules for legacy dwarves, but as the dwarf rules are right now, I've no patience for sexist dumbassery like this.

 Manchu wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I'm just glad they're finally giving me in-game bonuses for doing the stuff I was going to do anyway.

There is an honest point to be made here. Now, I'm not convinced it is a great design principle to encourage ... er, displays of enthusiasm with a mechanical bonus. But if I spend tons of time and money and effort building an army, you can bet I'm making "vwhooom!" noises when I use a spell.

Definitely. Battlefleet Gothic brought out all kinds of vocalizations for us. Even my son knows that spaceships make different noises.

My wife once noticed--or was "weirded out" by--a noise we would all make unconsciously and independently during the Buffy board game when moving the the stone textured lunar counter. She asked why we were all making the same sound in the back of our throats, the natural noise one expects from stone scraping against stone. Sometimes we just have to have sounds for the the ambiance.

 agnosto wrote:
It's like Car and Driver saying, "We quite like the new Audi and though it's missing any suspension at all and the brakes didn't work, we give it a solid A."

A telling metaphor ... AoS does not include mechanics that you think are absolutely essential for something to be a proper miniatures war game. And yet AoS is far from the first or only game that does not use them. So really, this is not a matter of what is essential but rather what you prefer in a product and/or demand from a product. That's fine. What is not fine, however, is blowing off other people's preferences because they are not the same as yours.

 Manchu wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I'm not going to become the bearded lady

The more important question would be, why spend your personal time hanging around someone who would insist you do something you don't want to as a condition of playing the game?

Because that's how family game night works?

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
And why not use Fantasy, which was on life support anyway, to test out a complete revolution of their games?

Exactly. My guess is, Fantasy taken on its own was in the red. Let's be cynical for the sake of argument: GW does not know how to sell Fantasy but it does know how to sell 40k. It has been oft-repeated, and does not seem incredible, that SM alone outsell all of WHFB. AoS makes perfect sense from that angle; it makes even more sense if one suspects GW also wants to go this way with 40k but doesn't want to rock the boat quite so much with the star product line. Not yet, anyhow.

You know what? If they get rid of bloat, and the game itself is fun, I might even embrace AoS style 40k.

Hell, part of me is into trying AoS as is, but the only painted fantasy I have are Mantic Ogres, and I don't have any gaming buddies in Baltimore.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Even my son knows that spaceships make different noises.

My wife claims boys are born equipped with laser and explosion noises. I reckon girls are, too, but are discouraged from doing so by bad parenting.

 Melissia wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I'm not going to become the bearded lady

The more important question would be, why spend your personal time hanging around someone who would insist you do something you don't want to as a condition of playing the game?

Any of the three closest LGS locations near me require an hour of commute time total (IE, coming and going).

If the game wasn't full of gakky design flaws, I wouldn't have to worry about wasting half an hour of driving time plus however much waiting and setup time, then another half hour of driving back home just to find out that the random person I end up playing with is intent on enforcing bs official Games Workshop rules like this.

But it is. And I have to deal with it. And my way of dealing with it is to just not play at all and let my models sit on my shelf than waste my time rolling the dice with who I end up gaming with because GW put thoughtlessly misogynistic rules in place. Maybe GW's rules for dwarves will be better than their rules for legacy dwarves, but as the dwarf rules are right now, I've no patience for sexist dumbassery like this.

Just don't take the single unit in the list that requires a beard. Or just don't use the rerolls.

No rule in the Dwarf list requires a beard to play the army.

 Polonius wrote:
You know what? If they get rid of bloat, and the game itself is fun, I might even embrace AoS style 40k.

Hell, part of me is into trying AoS as is, but the only painted fantasy I have are Mantic Ogres, and I don't have any gaming buddies in Baltimore.

I am going to play AoS on an out-of-the-starter-box basis only, at least to begin with. I think that will be great. I am less interested in the back catalog. But I can tell you this, I would buy the hell out of AoS-style 40k.

 pretre wrote:
No rule in the Dwarf list requires a beard to play the army.

This is an irrelevant and pointless non-solution, as it still puts me at a disadvantage.

 Melissia wrote:
the random person I end up playing with

Meet friends, schedule games. This is what I do, precisely because I refuse to play with random people.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
The more important question would be, why spend your personal time hanging around someone who would insist you do something you don't want to as a condition of playing the game?

Because that's how family game night works?

#TigerMom

 Manchu wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
It's like Car and Driver saying, "We quite like the new Audi and though it's missing any suspension at all and the brakes didn't work, we give it a solid A."

A telling metaphor ... AoS does not include mechanics that you think are absolutely essential for something to be a proper miniatures war game. And yet AoS is far from the first or only game that does not use them. So really, this is not a matter of what is essential but rather what you prefer in a product and/or demand from a product. That's fine. What is not fine, however, is blowing off other people's preferences because they are not the same as yours.

The problem isn't that we're blowing off other's preferences, because I don't think anybody is. The problem is that the easy part of game design is the engine. The hard part is balancing scenarios and points levels.

The one thing that seperates AoS from any number of semi-balanced fantasy rule sets out there is that there are specific rules for every single GW model.

 Melissia wrote:

 pretre wrote:
No rule in the Dwarf list requires a beard to play the army.

This is an irrelevant and pointless non-solution, as it still puts me at a disadvantage.

No, it really doesn't. Take any of the other hero entries in the list. It is one hero entry (thane with battle standard). There's what... 11 other heroes?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
the random person I end up playing with

Meet friends, schedule games. This is what I do, precisely because I refuse to play with random people.

I was going to suggest that as well. I don't think I've ever gone to a game night, with the intent of getting a game, without a game scheduled

 Melissia wrote:

 pretre wrote:
No rule in the Dwarf list requires a beard to play the army.

This is an irrelevant and pointless non-solution, as it still puts me at a disadvantage.

while I see the broader point, I think harping on endlessly about one stupid rule isn't going to sway people.

And it puts you at a "disadvantage" in a game that literally doesn't require balanced armies. This is not a game meant to be won or lost.

 Polonius wrote:
The problem isn't that we're blowing off other's preferences, because I don't think anybody is.

Ahem:

 agnosto wrote:
these people either have an agenda or should otherwise be completely discounted

But I agree with the rest of your post.

 Manchu wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
It's like Car and Driver saying, "We quite like the new Audi and though it's missing any suspension at all and the brakes didn't work, we give it a solid A."

A telling metaphor ... AoS does not include mechanics that you think are absolutely essential for something to be a proper miniatures war game. And yet AoS is far from the first or only game that does not use them. So really, this is not a matter of what is essential but rather what you prefer in a product and/or demand from a product. That's fine. What is not fine, however, is blowing off other people's preferences because they are not the same as yours.

Those other games cost a great deal less than GW games do. The car metaphor is appropriate as I have about as much time and money invested in WHFB to purchase a used car. It's like I came out of the house one morning and Toyota had come and taken the engine out of my car. Sure, I have the rest of the car but I won't be able to enjoy its use again without expending further funds and purchasing an engine from another manufacturer.

 agnosto wrote:
It's like I came out of the house one morning and Toyota had come and taken the engine out of my car.

One more time, what exactly did GW come steal from your house in order to make the metaphor comprehensible?

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
After going through a bunch of sites and watching a few battle reports online here and there, reading all the comments, it seems to be leaning unanimously among commenters towards two basic lines I keep hearing:

"Rules are sh**"

and

"Wheres the strategy, first two turns charge, rest of game melee mash in the middle of the board"

I can't imagine hearing these complaints from so many people including those who have played the game that it holds no weight or fact.

 Manchu wrote:
I guess what one finds all depends on who is looking ...

It cannot be denied. We liked this game. We liked it a lot, and we were not really expecting to. Yes, the lack of points is an issue and we will have to come up with something to handle our games if Games Workshop does not (kinda hoping for Scenario Scrolls to make an appearance). However, the game itself… we cannot really fault. It is simple, it works, and all the frilly bits are on the Warscrolls. There were no great rules debates during the game, other than those caused by our own ignorance (it was our first game) and those will disappear as we get to grips with the mechanics.

We were a bit surprised at the power of horses (two attacks each!), but they did get lucky rolls and probably reflect the use of cavalry quite well. We don’t see any issues developing there (other than me wanting to get Cold One Knights on the table!). The relative strengths of the other units seemed about right, from the Skeletons to the Treeman.

Undead armies could be quite potent due to their ability to summon, well, anything you have models for but, frankly, it does not seem to be as bad as it could be.

Overall, if you ignore the lack of points issue (and yes, I know that is a biggie), I would give this game a solid A grade.

https://ttgamingdiary.wordpress.com/2015/07/04/age-of-sigmar-battle-report-vampire-counts-vs-wood-elves/

That's not really a ringing endorsement... it's great that they had fun playing it (and I am sure people will) but even in that they point out that they have to ignore the lack of points to give it that grade.

I think if you ignored the under-or-over-costed points of almost any wargame, it could get a decent grade... balance is a major part of wargaming and it is completely lacking from both this game and that review.

Other than that, I will totally grant you that it looks like it could be fun between a few friends. That's a huge "but", though... totally okay with folks playing this but I don't think it's going to gain the kind of traction GW is banking on it gaining (as in, buy enough models to fill your deployment zone ). What's the craziest part is, if they had put in points you'd have so many more people buying in... and now you have to establish this new order where people are OK with a completely unbalanced game. It's like cutting off a huge percentage of the market to more exclusively focus on a subset... it could work, but man, that subset is going to need to buy in heavy for it to (imo). At least from GW's financial perspective.

----

Also, regarding gaming with friends - that's fantastic, but I (and many others) like to build armies I can play with others than my closest friends. With this game, that's not really a viable option, so again, they are intentionally limiting / narrowing their market share, and giving the rest to competitors... it will be interesting to see if they can leverage it enough for that to make financial sense.

 pretre wrote:
No, it really doesn't.

Given two identical armies, my army is weaker because I don't grow a beard due to being female. This is, by definition, a disadvantage.

[quote=
I think you need to be a bit more understanding towards those who simply don't wish to or can't throw away how they played the game just overnight after maybe even 20 years.

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
The problem isn't that we're blowing off other's preferences, because I don't think anybody is.

Ahem:

 agnosto wrote:
these people either have an agenda or should otherwise be completely discounted

But I agree with the rest of your post.

Was I wrong? They appear to have no concept of how cavalry mechanics work but praise the game for showing that, they admit that a large piece of the game is missing but determine it's worth an "A". Was that an "A" for effort?

I have no problem with people liking the game. I have a problem with someone saying, "Yeah, it's broken but I'll give it a perfect score anyway." In what reality should that be acceptable?

 Polonius wrote:
while I see the broader point, I think harping on endlessly about one stupid rule isn't going to sway people.

I'n not "harping endlessly", I'm debating. The fact that I defend my points in a discussion on a forum should not offend you.

 Melissia wrote:

 pretre wrote:
No, it really doesn't.

Given two identical armies, my army is weaker because I don't grow a beard due to being female. This is, by definition, a disadvantage.

But we're all glad that you're taking this so well. I know it's tough facing such overwhelming odds, but you've been a real trooper.

 Melissia wrote:

 pretre wrote:
No, it really doesn't.

Given two identical armies, my army is weaker because I don't grow a beard due to being female. This is, by definition, a disadvantage.

At first, I thought Polonius' use of 'harping' as a verb was unfair. I see what he's getting at though.

Sure, it's, by definition, a disadvantage if you take a Thane with Battle Standard. Luckily for you, 91% of the other Hero choices are available to you. The Thane isn't used in any of the formations and there's a whole huge list of units (28 or so) that don't require you to use him.

Great, you don't like that one rule. Don't use it.

 Polonius wrote:
But we're all glad that you're taking this so well. I know it's tough facing such overwhelming odds, but you've been a real trooper.

Trolling via strawman arguments and other such nonsense is beneath you, Polonius.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pretre wrote:
Great, you don't like that one rule. Don't use it.

I'm not using it-- after all, I'm putting off playing AoS at all until crap like this is gotten rid of.

 RiTides wrote:
they point out that they have to ignore the lack of points to give it that grade

Hold up, I posted that to counter the idea that the game is terrible even disregarding the lack of points-based list building.

 RiTides wrote:
I think if you ignored the under-or-over-costed points of almost any wargame, it could get a decent grade...

Seems fair to ignore a mechanic that does not exist in the game you are reviewing. This leads to the deeper issue of assuming GW's game is wrong/bad/broken/unfinished because it lacks something that, from a very deeply entrenched POV, is absolutely essential.

 RiTides wrote:
balance is a major part of wargaming and it is completely lacking from both this game and that review

No, it is a major part of some, mostly newer war games. I think a lot of posters are confusing the related concepts of balance and fairness.

 Melissia wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Great, you don't like that one rule. Don't use it.

I'm not using it-- after all, I'm putting off playing AoS at all until crap like this is gotten rid of.

Good, case closed then, right?

 Manchu wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Even my son knows that spaceships make different noises.

My wife claims boys are born equipped with laser and explosion noises. I reckon girls are, too, but are discouraged from doing so by bad parenting.

I know plenty of women who make pew pew noises. Unfortunately, my wife falls in with your later point in that she was discouraged from using her imagination and punished for playing pretend. As a consequence, she has trouble with the physicality and the psychology of playing. She's self conscious about making any sound that isn't widely accepted onomatopoeia. It doesn't seem to help no matter how many Police Academy movies we sit through.

 pretre wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Great, you don't like that one rule. Don't use it.

I'm not using it-- after all, I'm putting off playing AoS at all until crap like this is gotten rid of.

Good, case closed then, right?

I've mentioned this very sentiment numerous times, yet you're still here arguing against me-- so I guess it's not.

 Manchu wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
It's like I came out of the house one morning and Toyota had come and taken the engine out of my car.

One more time, what exactly did GW come steal from your house in order to make the metaphor comprehensible?

Initially nothing; ultimately, since AoS is it and nothing like 8th will exist any longer, they've removed my ability to take my GW WHFB armies into a game store and play a game that doesn't make me feel like a complete immature asshat. If I want to use Greasus, I have to strike a deal with my opponent? What opponent will accept anything if they know the result is a negative one for their units? So I have a $60 model that I've taken the time to put together and paint that is permanently hamstrung simply because some peon decided it'd be fun to turn a miniature game into a caricature of itself.

I'll get over it eventually, just like I'll apparently have to get over GW games, but that doesn't mean that I have to be grateful or immediately happy about it. This is me, saying my piece, along with other people that feel the same and some who don't.

 Melissia wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Great, you don't like that one rule. Don't use it.

I'm not using it-- after all, I'm putting off playing AoS at all until crap like this is gotten rid of.

Good, case closed then, right?

I've mentioned this very sentiment numerous times, yet you're still here arguing against me-- so I guess it's not.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. You keep mentioning it, so people keep responding.

 Melissia wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
while I see the broader point, I think harping on endlessly about one stupid rule isn't going to sway people.

I'n not "harping endlessly", I'm debating. The fact that I defend my points in a discussion on a forum should not offend you.

Your point is made to anybody with half a brain. it's an incredibly stupid rule, because it prevents women, men in the military, prepubecent boys, men that can't grow beards (like me), or people that don't care to look like lumberjacks. Given that women are, alas, a small portion of the warhammer playing audience, there probably more men affected by this rule than women.

But it's such a small issue, that while people might feel bad, they stop feeling bad because you're making a bigger deal of it than it merits. And that's fine, but if you're goal is any sort of persuasion, try to be persuasive.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It doesn't seem to help no matter how many Police Academy movies we sit through.

I wonder if Michael Winslow is available for counseling sessions? ... and now I wonder if he's available for wargaming voiceover work ...

At GW prices, you can't tell me there aren't players out there who could afford to hire him.

 Manchu wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
balance is a major part of wargaming and it is completely lacking from both this game and that review

No, it is a major part of some, mostly newer war games. I think a lot of posters are confusing the related concepts of balance and fairness.

I don't follow this. Are you comparing it to historicals where there is a scenario that is intentionally unfair to one side? (which is awesome)

Or Bloodbowl, that has intentionally underpowered / "fun" teams?

The problem here is there is no framework. In both of the examples I just listed, someone knows what they're getting into. With AoS, you have absolutely no idea until the other guy puts down 14 Bloodthirsters.

I'll totally give you that it's a new "non-entrenched" point of view for wargaming . I just wanted to point out what that review was ignoring, which is a pretty big deal for most wargamers (given the posts on Dakka when something that isn't balanced comes out for a small part of any wargame... and here, the whole game just eschews the idea entirely!). It is thinking outside the box, I'll give them that but I just don't see how it can work to the level they're expecting it to given the investment required.

 pretre wrote:
I think you're putting the cart before the horse. You keep mentioning it, so people keep responding.

If you think it's settled, why are you still here? I'm perfectly fine with defending my arguments-- in many ways, doing so is cathartic (though I do have to be particularly careful to make sure I follow Dakka's rules). That said, you're currently dragging the topic off topic by talking about me, and I'd rather not continue this line of conversation.

The sad thing is, I think this is GW's attempt at competing with skirmish games.
They heard the demands for a lower cost streamlined games and this is what they though we wanted?

Thankfully a new game store just opened near me, Malifaux ahoy!

 agnosto wrote:
they've removed my ability to take my GW WHFB armies into a game store and play a game that doesn't make me feel like a complete immature asshat

I guess the unspoken part is you only play at GW stores?

 agnosto wrote:
What opponent will accept anything if they know the result is a negative one for their units?

A good sport?

 Melissia wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
But we're all glad that you're taking this so well. I know it's tough facing such overwhelming odds, but you've been a real trooper.

Trolling via strawman arguments and other such nonsense is beneath you, Polonius.

It's really not. I've just learned over the years that the good stuff doesn't matter to you, so I play to the cheap seats.

But seriously, what do you want everybody to do? Agree that GW is horrible and sexist?

What point are you making that goes beyond the whole "these rules are stupid" that everybody is making?

 Polonius wrote:
But it's such a small issue, that while people might feel bad, they stop feeling bad because you're making a bigger deal of it than it merits.

This thread is about that particular topic. If just reading the discussion on the topic mentioned in this thread offends people so much that the logical portion of their brain shuts down, then, frankly, they're not worth persuading to begin with. And, just like I told pretre, now you're getting off topic by talking about me, instead of talking about the topic, and I'm not interested.

 Melissia wrote:

 pretre wrote:
No, it really doesn't.

Given two identical armies, my army is weaker because I don't grow a beard due to being female. This is, by definition, a disadvantage.

So play a gun line and bring a Glock. Advantage: yours.





Note to self: Homebrew AOS legacy house rules for Maelstrom's Edge Epirian Contractors, specifically in regards to costuming benefits.

 Melissia wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
But it's such a small issue, that while people might feel bad, they stop feeling bad because you're making a bigger deal of it than it merits.

This thread is about that particular topic. If just reading the discussion on the topic mentioned in this thread offends people so much that the logical portion of their brain shuts down, then, frankly, they're not worth persuading to begin with. And, just like I told pretre, now you're getting off topic by talking about me, instead of talking about the topic, and I'm not interested.

Wrong. I asked what point you were trying to make.

Care to share?

 RiTides wrote:
I don't follow this.

Do you mean, you don't get the difference between fairness and balance?

 RiTides wrote:
With AoS, you have absolutely no idea until the other guy puts down 14 Bloodthirsters.

As I mentioned earlier, it's not a problem that a given person might hypothetically be a douchebag. The problem is that someone actually is a douchebag. By all means, let the douchebags bring their 14 Bloothirster armies to the Tournament of Douches so they might finally know who is the true Douche Champion. I understand the problem here: with AoS, it can only ever be a Tournament of Douches because the rules do not sufficiently restrain and/or punish douchey behavior. What I don't understand is how this is at all material to reviewing AoS, considering AoS is not a tournament ruleset and it is made by a company that is unsurprisingly very much on record not giving a crap about tournaments. Does no one remember that GW made games that were only very, very roughly balanced long before anyone even dreamt up AoS?

 Manchu wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It doesn't seem to help no matter how many Police Academy movies we sit through.

I wonder if Michael Winslow is available for counseling sessions? ... and now I wonder if he's available for wargaming voiceover work ...

At GW prices, you can't tell me there aren't players out there who could afford to hire him.

That would be almost as awesome as my decades long dream of hiring Sam Neill to deliver a PowerPoint presentation. I wonder where Michael Winslow is now. I bet he would be invincible at AOS.

 Polonius wrote:
Wrong. I asked what point you were trying to make.

First you complained that I was making my point too often, now you're complaining that you don't know what it is?

These two things are inherently contradictory.

But if you really do need it repeated after complaining about me doing so... I think these "beard rules" are badly written. I find almost all of them immature and undesirable, and a couple of them to be even a bit misogynistic, and that this is enough reason for me to put off playing the game until better rules are released.

As is my wont, I have defended and elaborated upon this point in response to people responding to me, which thus explains my contribution to the eight pages this thread has garnered so far.

Honestly, outside of the fact that doing the same rote jokes over and over again will get old (and they will). The silly bits of AoS rub me the wrong way for one big reason. Every gaming group has their own set of inside jokes, weird mannerisms, and silly bits of humour. These were achieved by emergent interaction with game systems as well as the group's unique social dynamic. They are fun and funny for that group and no one had to write specific rules to force such social interactions because they happen organically as part of the experience of playing an inherently social game.

So the first thing that rubs me the wrong way is that all these enforced silly-time rules aren't actually funny because it is someone's own in jokes, and well, other people's in jokes aren't always particularly funny in another group. They lack that initial spark that made 'em stick with the group and means that they just don't get old quite as fast. But these proscribed rules WILL get old, and fast. It's as if they were afraid the game they delivered wouldn't provide the social canvas to get people laughing and having fun, so they made sure that they would force people instead. The day I need a game's rules to tell me to don an OUTRAGEOUS ACCENT is the day I die inside. I don't need a game designer self-inserting his oh-so-funny in jokes as literal game rules. That just makes it feel forced, like an old executive putting on a hat backwards and rapping so they can prove they're still hip.

Next, it is an obvious and unsubtle attempt to make Oldhammer stuff less appealing in play. They are already causing scale creep to help it along, but when you smatter the old units with forced in-jokes it gives this distinct impression of treating the original vets as second class citizens who GW couldn't even be bothered to give a proper release to. You get this distinct impression of them saying "Fine, play with your dumb old models, I hope you like bellowing like a loon and waving prop goblets around!" And again, this is the kind of stuff I expect from some groups, but forcing it drains all the fun and energy out of it and leaves the whole thing feeling hollow.

Third, it basically kills the game's viability for public clubs, LGS games, and tournaments. Now, I'm a gamer with space for a games room and I invite my group over to play in the privacy of my home, so we could play AoS straight without disruption (not that we would, because we don't need to parrot the designer's in-jokes, we have our own thanks). But in a public setting? Someone who lays down Wulfrik to sling epithets while someone's parent/SO/wife is browsing the store is a fast way to lose business. I can't see this stuff being easily do-able in this sort of environment, and sadly without public games AoS will lose a lot of its visibility compared to games that you can set up club or tourney games for without needing a list of house rules as to which special rules and characters are kosher in a given store.

With the game already lacking a "lingua franca" in terms of composition guidelines or a point system this means it feels like it is squarely aimed at insular groups that meet in private (i.e. the folks most likely to tell them to off while they just continue playing Oldhammer). Stores are put in to the hotseat in terms of providing not only a point system for the game (for public events at least) but they also need to set up a list of house rules to avoid overzealous folks playing by RAW from losing them customers due to proscribed, disruptive in-jokes being written in to the game itself.

I don't care for the whole mature/immature debate (I play with gorram toy soldiers for sake). But that doesn't mean I think these silly rules are a great step for the game and they are guaranteed to get old after the first couple of times. And after that you have a game where the sole balancing factor is "don't be a dick" that is expected to re-invigorate the WFB franchise despite being nearly entirely hostile to the concept of casual pick-up games. They made a beer and pretzels game that is probably the least appealing set of things to the casual gaming crowd and then to make it worse, they flipped off their "installed base" with asinine rules which means good luck getting grass roots support (which is basically all GW ever had to go on since they have no actual marketing department).

I can play a variety of other games that easily support casual play, and the choice of donning a silly accent or wearing a weird hat will remain mine. It is a pale attempt at aping the actual fun comedy elements of the Old World (which were always delightfully black as pitch) and it probably wont survive contact with the playerbase anyways after a few games. It is a big you to veteran players that sets them apart from current releases, and it is yet another thing that puts the onus of fixing the game on to a play group, tourney organizer, or store owner.

No thanks.

*imagines Manchu in full Mugatu mode*

 Manchu wrote:
Does no one remember that GW made games that were only very, very roughly balanced long before anyone even dreamt up AoS?

But seriously:

As I mentioned earlier, it's not a problem that a given person might hypothetically be a douchebag. The problem is that someone actually is a douchebag. By all means, let the douchebags bring their 14 Bloothirster armies to the Tournament of Douches so they might finally know who is the true Douche Champion. I understand the problem here: with AoS, it can only ever be a Tournament of Douches because the rules do not sufficiently restrain and/or punish douchey behavior. What I don't understand is how this is at all material to reviewing AoS, considering AoS is not a tournament ruleset and it is made by a company that is unsurprisingly very much on record not giving a crap about tournaments.

QFT. Exalt for 'Tournament of Douches'

- Salvage

Ronin_eX: since the silly end of the rule is nothing inherently to do with the associated mechanical bonus, there is literally no reason not to substitute it for your group's in-joke

This is just my opinion... but a new set of rules for a thirty-year-old game that shatters the fanbase THIS thoroughly simply CANNOT be considered a good one, simply from a business point of view.

When your customers are insulting each this virulently over whether the rules are any good are not, you've failed as a game company... or a Games Workshop, as the case may be.

I can see incidences of people having a laugh about someone's moustache and saying how he always rolls well with you know who etc.. But actually hardcopy applying rules that effect the game speaks of an insane lack of forethought or social awareness.

 Melissia wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Wrong. I asked what point you were trying to make.

First you complained that I was making my point too often, now you're complaining that you don't know what it is?

These two things are inherently contradictory.

But if you really do need it repeated after complaining about me doing so... I think these "beard rules" are badly written. I find almost all of them immature and undesirable, and a couple of them to be even a bit misogynistic, and that this is enough reason for me to put off playing the game until better rules are released.

As is my wont, I have defended and elaborated upon this point in response to people responding to me, which thus explains my contribution to the eight pages this thread has garnered so far.

You can make a point, clearly and repeatedly, without hyperbole or harshness.

What I'm saying is that I can make your point better than you can, and probably be more persuasive.

Your argument should be that the rule is silly, which it clearly is, and discriminates against all those that cannot grow beards, which by genetics and social convention precludes all women. Make the hat tip to the relatively minor nature of such a thing, but make the conclusion that its hard not to feel a bit excluded from really enjoying your army based on your sex. Rather than accuse them of being sexist (which the likely weren't), perhaps make the poignant point that GW didn't even consider the fact that women might want to play dwarves.

You could make your point in a more nuanced and effective manner by focusing less on the big stuff (sexist!) and more on the real stuff (that GW doesn't view women as even a potential audience).

 Polonius wrote:
You can make a point, clearly and repeatedly, without hyperbole or harshness.

If I wanted to respond to tone-policing I'd go read Reddit or Tumblr.

For the record, I don't visit either.