With Age of Sigmar brings rules where the players have to "act out" the rule, besides it being patronizing and insulting its a pretty stupid mechanic to introduce that doesn't help the image nor the perceptions of the feelings GW has towards its customers. After going through it and seeing the mushroom cloud over in fantasy land I cant help but wonder if GW would do such a thing to 40k? Would GW full Nintendo 40k into the stripped down, bumpers installed, kid friendly game?

Dancing and buffoonery for extra rules, yay or nay?

It's a fething joke.

I want my exterminatus, and I want it horrifying.
Turning 40k into kid-friendly mode will probably kill GW.

Unless they go all pokemon with everything. Aim it at 6-year-olds. Pretty Marine plushies.

I think I'd first die on the inside to know that other people will only know the 40k universe as a zany kids-only boardgame.

Then I'd make a revivalist cult of the Grim Darkness of the far future.

I can't say.
You can't say.

As far as I am concerned, not even GW can say.

Do they still have game designers or are the rules for their games written by sales?

I have no idea what they are trying to accomplish with AoS.

The prices aren't something kids can likely afford.
The rules are insane for people who won't pay top $$$ for what could be called gakposting.

I don't think it will happen, but if you'd asked me last year I'd have said the same about AoS.

I'm getting strong Rogue Trader vibes from Age of Sigmar, actually. Which is not necessarily a good thing.

Even as an Ork player, I would never shout "WAAAGH!!!" for extra rerolls.

Ah, so we get some LARP with our tabletop as a possibility.
Grim-dark switching to grim-dork.
Gamers can be looked on as freaks enough without this.

Next we will have to all line-dance every time "Lord Emperor" is mentioned.

Did I say this is goofy and not the behavior of a guy in his mid 40's? Not doing it, no sir.

THere's a nice thread on this already:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/654969.page

We hardly need to talk about it in 40k as well.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I don't think it will happen, but if you'd asked me last year d gave said the same about AoS.

Same with D being in standard 40k, or fantasy being on round bases. At this point GW will do anything to make itself look profitable.

I just find it funny that after the year of end times books that are now paperweights, the nintendo-ing of the game, the retiring of most of the plastics (the free rules are a filler and all those models are gone forever) and now dancing for rules that people still bend over for this. I cant say I have much respect for GW nor anyone that would give up their dignity or self respect for rules. We are all a whacky bunch in this hobby and doing that sort of stuff is usually funny, but when forced and given a reward? Nah cant say I'm interested in dancing for nickels.

Plus with rules like the medusa trying to make eye contact? Where is the limit on how long a dice roll takes?

To be fair, I like Konrad von Carstein's rule. If you talk to him, you get to re-roll 1s, if he talks back, you can re-roll everything.

Although even GW probably isn't stupid enough to neuter 40k, not with the success of FW's 30k line.

 pretre wrote:
THere's a nice thread on this already:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/654969.page

We hardly need to talk about it in 40k as well.

You're not a moderator, pretre, stop pretending to be one

 Melissia wrote:
Even as an Ork player, I would never shout "WAAAGH!!!" for extra rerolls.

And even the people that do it now are just doing it for fun get weird glances and the usual "lol someone is a little too into it". The second there is a reward system for that it strikes of images of entire stores being circus acts. How does that look to anyone trying to get into the game? Or to parents when you have people shouting and telling them to play staring contests or to kneel?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Shrike- wrote:
To be fair, I like Konrad von Carstein's rule. If you talk to him, you get to re-roll 1s, if he talks back, you can re-roll everything.

Although even GW probably isn't stupid enough to neuter 40k, not with the success of FW's 30k line.

To me that's just weird. I curse out my models for failing Happy Gilmore style from time to time but Im uncomfortable with the idea of a ruleset forcing me to do it for gain.

And really what would it be for 40k? Eating a sandwhich while playing Nids gets your rerolls in 18"? C'mon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:
Ah, so we get some LARP with our tabletop as a possibility.
Grim-dark switching to grim-dork.
Gamers can be looked on as freaks enough without this.

Next we will have to all line-dance every time "Lord Emperor" is mentioned.

Did I say this is goofy and not the behavior of a guy in his mid 40's? Not doing it, no sir.

Exactly, picture the stereotypical nerd bro that we all know at least one of shouting "DEATH TO THE FALSE EMPEROR" to get a reroll, in front of some parents who just wandered into the store.

 Ravenous D wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Even as an Ork player, I would never shout "WAAAGH!!!" for extra rerolls.

And even the people that do it now are just doing it for fun get weird glances and the usual "lol someone is a little too into it". The second there is a reward system for that it strikes of images of entire stores being circus acts. How does that look to anyone trying to get into the game? Or to parents when you have people shouting and telling them to play staring contests or to kneel?

Pretty much. The moment you reward people for specific behaviors it drowns out unbridled passion with aloof self-interest.

 Melissia wrote:

 pretre wrote:
THere's a nice thread on this already:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/654969.page

We hardly need to talk about it in 40k as well.

You're not a moderator, pretre, stop pretending to be one

I'm not pretending to be one. If you don't appreciate my post, do what I did and hit the little yellow triangle. I simply post the link for everyone's convenience when/if this thread closes or they see sense.

That page's list of "rules" is so depressingly bad I actually died on the inside a little bit.

This kind of radical change Won't happen as long as 40k still make them loads of $. Also Age of Sigmar might go out like Dreadfleet did and in doing so they will never even attempt something like that with 40K. I don't think they will be able to rise AoS sales any higher than what WFB was.

 A Watcher In The Dark wrote:
This kind of radical change Won't happen as long as 40k still make them loads of $. Also Age of Sigmar might go out like Dreadfleet did and in doing so they will never even attempt something like that with 40K. I don't think they will be able to rise AoS sales any higher than what WFB was.

Never say never.

If GW sees a surge in fantasy revenue from AoS selling well, maybe they could expect the same surge, but on a larger scale, by doing the same to 40k.

If you had told be 5 years ago;
We could purchase terrain with points, I'd have called you silly.
If you had told me flyers would be a part of the core game, I'd have doubted you.
If allies were on ANYONE's radar I'd be a little surprised.

If you had told me 3 years ago;
We would have random objectives every turn, I'd have thought you were being ridiculous.
If you had told me titans and super heavies were totally okay in 1000 point games without opponent's consent, I'd have thought you were crazy.
If Orks and Tau allies, or a wall of super heavies, or straight up unbound lists were on anyone's radar I'd be surprised.

Or 1-2 year turn around on codexes
Or 2 year life span of 6th edition
Or a dozen plus formations, dataslates, supplements, campaign books and codexes released every year.

GW isn't consistent, and cannot be anticipated in any sane way. Next year could bring "Warhammer 40k; Age of the Emperor"! Shout "For da Emprah!" so your marines can reroll bolter wounds!

It's embarrassing for the individual and the community as a whole.

Not necessarily my cup of tea, but honestly the lack of points is a far bigger turn off than "ride an invisible horse for re-rolls". Would imagine that would get old real fast though

Welcome to the future of 40k! Yelling "Blood for the Blood God!" "Dancing like a harlequin" and no structure or depth whatsoever.

Or worse do away with points, cause a grot is equal to a space marine right?

I would cringe even harder if they did and I came across ponymarines. And I play bright pink Eldar.

 -Shrike- wrote:
To be fair, I like Konrad von Carstein's rule. If you talk to him, you get to re-roll 1s, if he talks back, you can re-roll everything.

Although even GW probably isn't stupid enough to neuter 40k, not with the success of FW's 30k line.

Konrad talks to me all the time, whats so special about that.

Haha it handicaps people who are clean shaven! As if GW have the audacity to try and affect their customers appearance.

Am I the only one thar spotted Greaseus Goldtooth's special rule? You can LITERALLY bribe someone to inflict a debuff. That's it, I'm switching to AoS and raking in the dough. I'll have enough for my warlord in not time!

I love the character rules.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Welcome to the future of 40k! Yelling "Blood for the Blood God!" "Dancing like a harlequin" and no structure or depth whatsoever.

Its been years that i shout BftBG when Kharn kills an ennemy character or any other deed that is worth the attention of my patron God...

Another guy always hits his chest wit his fist when he do good rolls, and another yells "Deeeeeeccccappppiiiiittttaiiiioooooooooooonnnnnn" in the purest Brutal legend style when he ID a model...

Maybe we're the Weird bunch, but we don't really see whats wrong with this, its a game after all.

Now yeah i understand that it can be a bother for some shy or socially awkward guys, but come on, you allready look like a Dork to other poeple the second you mention wargame with models anyway, a bit more or less can't hurt.

I don't get it. I wouldn't pay premium for a miniature game that has my kid behaving like a jackass, and certainly wouldn't play one myself. It's so lame and unfunny it just baffles my mind. Just who is it aimed for?

@ Slayer la boucher: Personally I can assure you I am not a shy or socially awkward guy, I used to run bar crawls in Newcastle averaging between 150-180 people, and I promise you that no shy or socially awkward person could have been as successful at running them as I was. Now having said that - I would resent GW for forcing me to do such things if I want to play the game 'properly' and with an even chance. I like to play the game in my own way and whilst I do not mind the odd person doing the whole in-character shouting, it is not my style. It would also make it difficult to carry on in converting my girlfriend to the game.
Furthermore, granting people official in game benefits for having a longer beard or moustach is pure sexism, no matter how you dress it up as a laidback jovial approach.

Wow...I thought this stuff was a joke at first...


Anyways, people would just end up ignore the role-playing, and claim the rules. I don't know too many Ork players who yell "Whaaaagh!" but they still use the rules.

I think some sort of similar sub-game designed for kids or innebriated adults as a kind of party game might be kind of fun and silly, but none of this stuff in the main game, if you please.

So there wont be any US military(I don't know any other military standards) playing Dwarves anymore? Wow, way to bias the rules . This was an attempt to reboot a game that had been lagging so bad it was silly. Do I agree with it, hell no. People I know who have played say its fun, but is not Fantasy WHB. I don't think 40k has anything to fear since its still the top seller and has no need for a reboot. Aside from the insane new power creep in the codices, this is the most fun edition of 40k since 2nd and I think a lot of people have keyed in on this.

I like games where you can have some fun acting things out, think Red Dragon Inn. But that is a fun drinking game to play with friends, not a serious tactical wargame. I'm currently not afraid of this hitting 40k, and I think the 40k part of dakka has been talking too much about it. Move on folk, let our slowed brother play on the side of the road.

a party game that cost 150$. I might as well get Mario Party whatever, I will get to yell for 50.

They've totally lost the plot.

If you can't see just how little respect this shows they have for their customers, I feel sorry for you.

I vote Nay.

To all the facial hair naysayers, nothing says it has to be natural. I for one am military and would bring my own beard just for the lulz.

The details my friends, them's where daemons be.

Poly Ranger wrote:
@ Slayer la boucher: Personally I can assure you I am not a shy or socially awkward guy, I used to run bar crawls in Newcastle averaging between 150-180 people, and I promise you that no shy or socially awkward person could have been as successful at running them as I was. Now having said that - I would resent GW for forcing me to do such things if I want to play the game 'properly' and with an even chance. I like to play the game in my own way and whilst I do not mind the odd person doing the whole in-character shouting, it is not my style. It would also make it difficult to carry on in converting my girlfriend to the game.
Furthermore, granting people official in game benefits for having a longer beard or moustach is pure sexism, no matter how you dress it up as a laidback jovial approach.

That's discriminating against women that have beards!

I seriously doubt that this was meant to be sexist. For one, no publicly traded company would deliberately say or do anything considered 'offensive.' Second, that would imply that GW have this aspect of the rules any more than a moment's thought.

I laughed when I first saw these as I believed them to be a joke.
Then I downloaded the rules and wept tears for I saw that they where true.

This is the death of Fantasy. No balancing system, stupid special rules, terrible system... And it made me into an even bigger pessimistic naysayer. If GW want little children playing then they can go right ahead, but the way these rules are done will bring even more ridicule down on the community. People shouting WAAAGH!, comparing beards, raising goblets of wine, yada yada.... Can you imagine what people walking past will think?

Point well made but I don't think that'd go down well with the gf - "so if you want a better chance at winning, you'll have to wear this santa beard throughout the game to make sure you always have the longest beard in case you or anyone else brings a thane. Oh and whilst on the topic, here is an Asterix Moustach. Yes, yes of course you need it in case anybody brings Helsbourg. Also you know that subgame in ring of fire, Snakes-eyes? Well I'm bringing medusa so you really don't want to be making eye contact with me during the game. No! I swear I'm not making it up, GW are involving drinking games in WH now - look here are the rules. Ok, well if you want to even it out, you know that I have a really bad back and kneel rather than bend over to pick things up? Well if you make me kneel to pick up dice at any point during the game you auto win! Yes - even if you only have 1 model left and I haven't suffered a single casualty. Well it must be fair! It's in the rules, see? Ok we can ignore that one if we don't take that character. Ok here's another way to make it easier for you - you can take control of ANY one of my units... but you have to give me cheeky fun time later on. No I'm not making it up, I promise! Look right there - it's in the rules! Braaarghrasghurah!!!!! Huh? Oh that was my braying warcry. Eh? What do you mean you're going out?"

Yeah. I'm glad I'm teaching her 40k.

I must admit I am big on "rules as written".

The extra acting credits during the game are irritating since I would not opt into using them due to silliness but others will "dance" to the rules for advantage.

Just makes another tier of play... wonderful.

I want games to be inclusive, outside looking in I think it will repel people rather than have them thinking it is a "good time".

Ugh...

Let's pray to the Chaos Gods that if GW decides to "bring 40k back to its roots" they just rerelease Gorkamorka.

Seems to me that game was endless fun without having slowed charade rules.

Still waiting for a rule such as "If you lose the game, optionally perform Seppuku to reclaim your clans honor and force a draw!"

Putting a moustache joke rule in a game isn't sexism. For crying out loud, will you get real.

People these days.

 Runic wrote:
Putting a moustache joke rule in a game isn't sexism. For crying out loud, will you get real.

People these days.

Exalted. Thank you.

nvm

every time i capture an objective with my cultist i scream, "Hwee Kaptoored Eet Fhor Kay-oss!"

I feel like if I can fart a 3-note melody, the enemy should lose all detachment benefits.

 Runic wrote:
Putting a moustache joke rule in a game isn't sexism. For crying out loud, will you get real.

People these days.

I tried to make a joke of it later on if you'd carried on reading, but thanks for the condescension.

But now you bring it back up, an OFFICIAL in game rule that gives benefits to people with the longest moustache or beard is indeed sexism as it is incredibly difficult for females to grow such facial hair, thus benefits males over females. Now I was just pointing out that it is a sexist attitude, it wasn't the main thing I was foccusing on and I can appreciate GW having a joke.

The issue is that it is written into the main game rules. These rules shows what GW actually think of its customer base and show the lack of respect they hold towards that customer base. It forces players to play a certain way of they want to play raw without being disadvantaged. Some players like to scream Waaaggghhh, some don't, and both are completely fine. Why should we all have to do so if we want advantages in the game? Why should we be shoehorned into all being that one type of player?

 Runic wrote:
Putting a moustache joke rule in a game isn't sexism. For crying out loud, will you get real.

"Get real" is what I suggest to you.

You provide a flat out denial, but you don't actually provide any reasoning to counter the arguments presented.

Of course, you don't have any counter-argument to begin with.

Reminds me of 4th edition D&D. Removed all the old familiar rules to make it simpler, for the kids. You know, all those D&D playing 8 year olds. In my opinion its all gonna go as well as 4th ed D&D did. With pathfinder/mantic picking up the slack.

The rules about facial hair aren't the joke. The joke is that people think winning or losing GW games is of even the slightest import. The facial hair rules are the punchline.

GW has been telling us, explictly or implicitly, for years that the game is meant to be casual, non-competitive, and about the narrative. The joke is that we all kept playing the game to win.

 Polonius wrote:
GW has been telling us, explictly or implicitly, for years that the game is meant to be casual, non-competitive, and about the narrative.

So GW thinks only immature neckbeards can be casual, non-competitive, and care about the narrative?

 Runic wrote:
Putting a moustache joke rule in a game isn't sexism. For crying out loud, will you get real.

People these days.

We could change the rule to, "Whoever has the biggest cup size." That might apply to some men as well. That make you happy?

 Melissia wrote:

 Runic wrote:
Putting a moustache joke rule in a game isn't sexism. For crying out loud, will you get real.

"Get real" is what I suggest to you.

You provide a flat out denial, but you don't actually provide any reasoning to counter the arguments presented.

Of course, you don't have any counter-argument to begin with.

Well, that's the most useless post I've seen all week, you're basically just asking for an argument. Go ahead and think otherwise, it changes nothing.

Sorry then Poly Ranger, didn't catch the joking part. All cool.

If someone thinks a harmless joke in a game is sexism and gets offended by it, I don't know what to tell you really. Must be hard existing. And with that, I'm done on the subject ( a ridiculous one to beginwith. )

No worries then.

 Runic wrote:
Well, that's the most useless post I've seen all week, you're basically just asking for an argument.

Dictionary wrote:Argument; a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

Yes, I am.

 Runic wrote:
a harmless joke in a game

A sexist "joke", whether or not you personally think it is "harmless", that is part of the official rules of the game is a perfectly valid reason to dislike said game compared to better-designed games.

 Melissia wrote:

 Runic wrote:
Putting a moustache joke rule in a game isn't sexism. For crying out loud, will you get real.

"Get real" is what I suggest to you.

You provide a flat out denial, but you don't actually provide any reasoning to counter the arguments presented.

Of course, you don't have any counter-argument to begin with.

I've seen women with more facial hair than some men.

Stop overusing the term "sexist".

And I've seen men with bigger boobs than mine. An exception to a general rule does not disprove the existence of a general rule; IE, "it's a bad idea to drive around Israel waving a Nazi flag" is a good general rule, and while it might be possible for you to have a good time doing that, it's still kind of dumb.

 Talizvar wrote:
Ah, so we get some LARP with our tabletop as a possibility.
Grim-dark switching to grim-dork.
Gamers can be looked on as freaks enough without this.

Next we will have to all line-dance every time "Lord Emperor" is mentioned.

Did I say this is goofy and not the behavior of a guy in his mid 40's? Not doing it, no sir.

Grimdark has always been grim-dork. Always.

This kind of radical change Won't happen as long as 40k still make them loads of $. Also Age of Sigmar might go out like Dreadfleet did and in doing so they will never even attempt something like that with 40K. I don't think they will be able to rise AoS sales any higher than what WFB was.

And 40k has not been making them loads of money for a company their size in a very, very long time. The Specialist Games (Dreadfleet, BFG, Blood Bowl) would do well if GW would actually support them... but they don't, so they don't.

Yeah, I miss a lot of the specialist games. Necromunda for example... actually did a bit of an online game of Necrumunda (making use of maptool) last year which was quite fun.

Mordheim is nice at least, on Steam. (I seem to have been dyslexic in remembering which name belonged to which game...)

 asorel wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
@ Slayer la boucher: Personally I can assure you I am not a shy or socially awkward guy, I used to run bar crawls in Newcastle averaging between 150-180 people, and I promise you that no shy or socially awkward person could have been as successful at running them as I was. Now having said that - I would resent GW for forcing me to do such things if I want to play the game 'properly' and with an even chance. I like to play the game in my own way and whilst I do not mind the odd person doing the whole in-character shouting, it is not my style. It would also make it difficult to carry on in converting my girlfriend to the game.
Furthermore, granting people official in game benefits for having a longer beard or moustach is pure sexism, no matter how you dress it up as a laidback jovial approach.

That's discriminating against women that have beards!

I seriously doubt that this was meant to be sexist. For one, no publicly traded company would deliberately say or do anything considered 'offensive.' Second, that would imply that GW have this aspect of the rules any more than a moment's thought.

You haven't been paying attention if you think publicly-traded companies don't frequently stick their feet in their mouths.

Further, just because GW is publicly-traded does not mean they have members of the public actually working there. In fact, we know they don't. They do no market research, they do no industry analysis. They don't pay attention, at all, to who plays their games, why, or in what manner. For all we know, GW assumes that every 40K player on the planet is a Caucasian Male, aged 35-45, earning a median $125K a year, with a two-story house and two-car garage, and is of Anglo-Saxon descent. Since GW does no market research, we will never know what they think.

The thought that GW might not have realized that there are people that buy or play their games who cannot grow beards is actually the scariest part!

I dont' think the rule is sexist, but I also think it comes from a place where GW doesn't even think about women, which is somewhat worse.

 Psienesis wrote:


Grimdark has always been grim-dork. Always.

Which is why it is called "Grimdark" and not ... dunno ... dystopian or something along those lines.

Silly portmanteau word to describe a silly concept.

 Polonius wrote:
I dont' think the rule is sexist, but I also think it comes from a place where GW doesn't even think about women, which is somewhat worse.

Unconscious sexism is still sexism. In the "real world", unconscious bias is the most common type.

 Melissia wrote:

 Runic wrote:
Putting a moustache joke rule in a game isn't sexism. For crying out loud, will you get real.

"Get real" is what I suggest to you.

You provide a flat out denial, but you don't actually provide any reasoning to counter the arguments presented.

Of course, you don't have any counter-argument to begin with.

I can't believe, I'm actually arguing about this...

Going by the rules, fake beards DO count. Therefore it does not put women at a disadvantage. Therefore it is not sexist.

And btw: RAW you do not even need to WEAR the fake beard. You just need to HAVE it. Never played a lot of Munchkin, did you?

 Melissia wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I dont' think the rule is sexist, but I also think it comes from a place where GW doesn't even think about women, which is somewhat worse.

Unconscious sexism is still sexism. In the "real world", unconscious bias is the most common type.

Fair enough. I think that people always color the word "sexist" with chauvanism, when that isn't always the case.

Let me amend: I don't think the rule, as written, exhibits any animosity or dislike for women. However, it is mildly discrimanatory against women.

AS you point out, the unconcious bias, in that a woman would never wnat to play it, is the real problem here.

I'm avoiding the loaded language, because one third of hte internet is devoted to calling everything sexist, while another third is devoting to denying that sexism exists. I try to move past the big language and get to the meat.

 Polonius wrote:
I also think it comes from a place where GW doesn't even think about women, which is somewhat worse.

Imagine the conversation at GW: "we know there are going to be a lot of current customers who won't be happy with the new game, but it's worth it because the simplification will make our products more accessible to new customers and broaden our appeal. Oh, by the way, let's write the rules on the assumption that our target audience is the exact same people we're already selling to."

 Melissia wrote:
And I've seen men with bigger boobs than mine. An exception to a general rule does not disprove the existence of a general rule; IE, "it's a bad idea to drive around Israel waving a Nazi flag" is a good general rule, and while it might be possible for you to have a good time doing that, it's still kind of dumb.

So...what's your point? The rule asks you to emulate a defining feature of a specific character (his moustache) and makes no exclusions for fake moustaches. Even if it did, you're ignoring the inability of male kids and many men to grow moustaches for the sake of soapboxing about a problem that doesn't exist. Are you going to lecture us on the ageism implied by another of the new rules or just accept that the game is simply not meant to be taken seriously?

 Peregrine wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I also think it comes from a place where GW doesn't even think about women, which is somewhat worse.

Imagine the conversation at GW: "we know there are going to be a lot of current customers who won't be happy with the new game, but it's worth it because the simplification will make our products more accessible to new customers and broaden our appeal. Oh, by the way, let's write the rules on the assumption that our target audience is the exact same people we're already selling to."

That seems to be exactly what happened.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

lustigjh wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
And I've seen men with bigger boobs than mine. An exception to a general rule does not disprove the existence of a general rule; IE, "it's a bad idea to drive around Israel waving a Nazi flag" is a good general rule, and while it might be possible for you to have a good time doing that, it's still kind of dumb.

So...what's your point? The rule asks you to emulate a defining feature of a specific character (his moustache) and makes no exclusions for fake moustaches. Even if it did, you're ignoring the inability of male kids and many men to grow moustaches for the sake of soapboxing about a problem that doesn't exist. Are you going to lecture us on the ageism implied by another of the new rules or just accept that the game is simply not meant to be taken seriously?

You make the assumption that GW thinks kids buy their products to actually play a game with them. No, no... that isn't the GW Hobby. The GW Hobby is buying GW Products, Specifically Models and Paints. Full stop.

Rules? Rules are just for those nerds who feel like they need to actually do something other than Buy GW Products with their GW Products.

Okay, lets just call this what it is, Hairist. Those vile bigwigs at GW are obviously doing their best to keep the non hairy people of the world down with their discrimination.
THE HAIRISTS ARE REAL, WAKE UP PEOPLE.

Really though, as a person who literally cannot grow a beard to save his life this is just silly. Its just another case of geedubs blundering through the dark groping for a stack of bills and making bad decisions like they always do. Why is everyone so surprised?

These look like they are something that was only ever intended to be fun little rules to be used in garage games or late night FLGS lockins. I cannot for the life of me see any reasonable person taking these rules seriously. They remind me of drinking games honestly

 Red Marine wrote:
Reminds me of 4th edition D&D. Removed all the old familiar rules to make it simpler, for the kids. You know, all those D&D playing 8 year olds. In my opinion its all gonna go as well as 4th ed D&D did. With pathfinder/mantic picking up the slack.

Actually, 4th edition sold better than 3.X. And 4e combat isn't what I would call "simple." Sure, A/E/D/U removed a lot of differentiation from the classes, but I believe that the intent was to make it easier to balance the game, as one of the chief complaints of 3.X was the disparity between martial and caster characters.

 asorel wrote:

 Red Marine wrote:
Reminds me of 4th edition D&D. Removed all the old familiar rules to make it simpler, for the kids. You know, all those D&D playing 8 year olds. In my opinion its all gonna go as well as 4th ed D&D did. With pathfinder/mantic picking up the slack.

Actually, 4th edition sold better than 3.X. And 4e combat isn't what I would call "simple." Sure, A/E/D/U removed a lot of differentiation from the classes, but I believe that the intent was to make it easier to balance the game, as one of the chief complaints of 3.X was the disparity between martial and caster characters.

I have trouble beliving 4th edition sold better. maybe the inital sourcebooks but the follow ups? thats doubtful. (every 3.x player bought the core 4th edition books. most of us promptly decided they sucked and didn't buy anymore)

but 4th edition is hardly alone in the "firebomb the game and, more importantly, the setting to try and draw in new blood" the problem is it tends to aliennate the old players whose word of mouth you need for a game to take off.

 Polonius wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I dont' think the rule is sexist, but I also think it comes from a place where GW doesn't even think about women, which is somewhat worse.

Unconscious sexism is still sexism. In the "real world", unconscious bias is the most common type.

Fair enough. I think that people always color the word "sexist" with chauvanism, when that isn't always the case.

Let me amend: I don't think the rule, as written, exhibits any animosity or dislike for women. However, it is mildly discrimanatory against women.

AS you point out, the unconcious bias, in that a woman would never wnat to play it, is the real problem here.

I'm avoiding the loaded language, because one third of hte internet is devoted to calling everything sexist, while another third is devoting to denying that sexism exists. I try to move past the big language and get to the meat.

I like how you've put that.

 Polonius wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I dont' think the rule is sexist, but I also think it comes from a place where GW doesn't even think about women, which is somewhat worse.

Unconscious sexism is still sexism. In the "real world", unconscious bias is the most common type.

Fair enough. I think that people always color the word "sexist" with chauvanism, when that isn't always the case.

Let me amend: I don't think the rule, as written, exhibits any animosity or dislike for women. However, it is mildly discrimanatory against women.

AS you point out, the unconcious bias, in that a woman would never wnat to play it, is the real problem here.

I'm avoiding the loaded language, because one third of hte internet is devoted to calling everything sexist, while another third is devoting to denying that sexism exists. I try to move past the big language and get to the meat.

I would agree that 'unconscious bias' is the most prevalent forms of bias. That being said, there are many (an alarmingly high number of which have influence in academia) who take wholly innocuous statements, and attempt to tease some sort of discrimination out of them, and labeling them "microaggressions."

Perhaps they're not quite so innocuous as you think they are, then.

 asorel wrote:


I would agree that 'unconscious bias' is the most prevalent forms of bias. That being said, there are many (an alarmingly high number of which have influence in academia) who take wholly innocuous statements, and attempt to tease some sort of discrimination out of them, and labeling them "microaggressions."

I'm very familiar with feminist theory, modern practice, and unconscious bias. There aspects of micro aggressions might be innocuous, and the result of overreaching, or they could be a genuine, if smaller scale, issue.

Feminists are people, and like any group of people a big chunk kind of suck.

*edit*

 Melissia wrote:
Perhaps they're not quite so innocuous as you think they are, then.

No, I'm fairly certain phrases like "where are you from" or "the most qualified person should get the job" aren't oppressing anyone.

 Melissia wrote:
Perhaps they're not quite so innocuous as you think they are, then.

I personally think the offending rules stem less from an active bias or prejudice and more from the realm of indifference.
Hmmm... humor, slapstick, put a beard on it? Why not.
There are many injustices that deserve slapping down but these arguments feel like they fit in the realm of "you are opposite sex / orientation from me therefore are inherently prejudiced."
I respect the strength and... vigor of the arguments posed but I guess I feel they lack the sense of proportion to the crime.

Agreed, silly rules, I am too unbending to get that goofy, my problem.

 asorel wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Perhaps they're not quite so innocuous as you think they are, then.

No, I'm fairly certain phrases like "where are you from" or "the most qualified person should get the job" aren't oppressing anyone.

Well... I hope that this isn't all you've taken from feminism. Asking a person where they are from is usually innocuous, but it could intimidate a person who has been stalked, which is disproportionately women. I wouldn't consider it aggressive, but it's an interesting way of demonstrating privilege.

Now... The phrase "the most qualified person should get the job" is different. It's virtually always uttered by a person speaking against any sort of affirmative action, which makes it a loaded phrase. It's also painfully naive. I've been on hiring panels for professionals, and the concept of a clearly most qualified person is a unicorn. Jobs have different aspects, and two highly qualified people can bring very different things to the table. Due to this, it's really easy to pick candidates that you like personally.

Indeed it is. That's one of the biggest problems within Human Resources today-- that, and HR not understanding the needs of the department they're hiring for.

Tbh i dont think the silly/sexist/hairist etc rules are going to be much of a problem.

I for one will be taking all such rules as a given, without the need for the stupidity

 asorel wrote:

 Red Marine wrote:
Reminds me of 4th edition D&D. Removed all the old familiar rules to make it simpler, for the kids. You know, all those D&D playing 8 year olds. In my opinion its all gonna go as well as 4th ed D&D did. With pathfinder/mantic picking up the slack.

Actually, 4th edition sold better than 3.X. And 4e combat isn't what I would call "simple." Sure, A/E/D/U removed a lot of differentiation from the classes, but I believe that the intent was to make it easier to balance the game, as one of the chief complaints of 3.X was the disparity between martial and caster characters.

I, too, am going to need sources that prove 4th ed sold better than 3.x. I mean, I started D&D with the red box set in like 1983 or some such, and was not a huge fan of the execution of 3.x (good core ideas, poor execution). 4th ed was an MMO played with dice.

 Rautakanki wrote:
I don't get it. I wouldn't pay premium for a miniature game that has my kid behaving like a jackass, and certainly wouldn't play one myself. It's so lame and unfunny it just baffles my mind. Just who is it aimed for?

Ive been trying to figure that out. Sales volume has been declining every year so there is less and less new blood and raising the prices to a prohibitive level means its out for kids. Its rules are dumbed down for people that have a hard time with "The numbers" so GW is obviously trying to broaden the audience, but are a niche, so that's an idiot move. They cant be trying to win over their own people because everyone with a brain is looking at this as a gaint clusterfeth while the sycophants, apologists and goobs are the only ones harshly promoting this and scaring people off with GWs typical cunty attitude.

That leaves who? GW isn't on social media so I don't get why they have that guy going to all the major cons to promote it when in the first 30 seconds you realize its going to be a massive dollar investment into a company that just boned a lot of people with a bait and switch move and has one of the worst public images from its own customers.

I'm just really hoping they get a whole bunch of players abusing the everliving feth out of aos in their own events. Getting into heated discussions about what is balanced in every game and rules lawyering the paint of the models, destroying elaborate bases made especially for the event, completely boxing in armies with flyers and getting WWWAAYYY to much into character.

Make it the biggest troll event in the history of ever. Ofc only actually using the warscrolls for (still) existing units.

Burn it with fire.

If I wanted to play Munchkin, Cards Against Humanity, or We Didn't Playtest This At All, I would play those games instead.

I just hope the larger-scale book for Warhammer doesn't have any of this fething nonsense. I can get it for a small game you can play when drunk, but the novelty would wear really thin in larger-scale games.

lustigjh wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
And I've seen men with bigger boobs than mine. An exception to a general rule does not disprove the existence of a general rule; IE, "it's a bad idea to drive around Israel waving a Nazi flag" is a good general rule, and while it might be possible for you to have a good time doing that, it's still kind of dumb.

So...what's your point? The rule asks you to emulate a defining feature of a specific character (his moustache) and makes no exclusions for fake moustaches. Even if it did, you're ignoring the inability of male kids and many men to grow moustaches for the sake of soapboxing about a problem that doesn't exist. Are you going to lecture us on the ageism implied by another of the new rules or just accept that the game is simply not meant to be taken seriously?

Are the models free? If they are not then then game automaticly becomes serious. And please don't compare someones inability to have facial hair, with GW writing their rules in a way that assumes no female players use them.The fact that it could be worse, someone could be on a wheel chair and play demons, only points on how bad the rules are.

I agree with Makumba, why would you pay GW prices for a joke?

Wait, are these rules actually reall or just rumors ?! this is kinda silly to make fantasy a kid game.... I mean this would be fun to do with my son,daughter, etc. maybe even being drunk with friends...But a serious pick up game? lol no

 Crimson Devil wrote:
I agree with Makumba, why would you pay GW prices for a joke?

to be fair, you dont' have to. The rules are free, and are only for legacy models, so you can use old WFB models in AOS.

it's not a question of paying money for the joke, but having the money you spent be turned into a joke...

 Crimson Devil wrote:
I agree with Makumba, why would you pay GW prices for a joke?

But MUST be a joke because you can download all the rules for FREE, GW does nothing for free unless it is a joke.
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/Warhammer?N=102267+4294967072&Nu=product.repositoryId&qty=12&sorting=phl&view=table&categoryId=cat440002a-flat

Oh well, you can "forge the narrative" while partnering with your opponent more than ever before.

wow.. those are joke rules, and they will not be on any of the new warscrolls. JOKE RULES PEOPLE! Talk with your opponent and use them if you're in the mood, and don't use them if you're not.

Are you all playing unbound and everyone puts everything he wants on the table? Because that's in the 40k rulebook somewhere, and yet most people stick to detachments. Seriously, saying this is a bad game because it has optional joke rules is just silly.

I, for one, am appalled that GW would sully our games of make-believe with acting.

 master of ordinance wrote:

but the way these rules are done will bring even more ridicule down on the community. People shouting WAAAGH!, comparing beards, raising goblets of wine, yada yada.... Can you imagine what people walking past will think?

It might cause almost as much contempt as if these onlookers were to see or hear people act like someone pronoucing words like, say "boxes" or "space" slightly oddly was funny to perpetuate for years and years.

There is a difference between a football fan taking their shirt off to expose their beer belly and a football fan streaking across the pitch.

 DaKKaLAnce wrote:
Wait, are these rules actually reall or just rumors ?!

All real buddy.

Go here:

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-NZ/age-of-sigmar-compendiums

Poly Ranger wrote:
There is a difference between a football fan taking their shirt off to expose their beer belly and a football fan streaking across the pitch.

I believe the point of contention here is that the rules have been changed in such a manner that streaking across the field would contribute to your scoring a touchdown.

 DaKKaLAnce wrote:
Wait, are these rules actually reall or just rumors ?! this is kinda silly to make fantasy a kid game.... I mean this would be fun to do with my son,daughter, etc. maybe even being drunk with friends...But a serious pick up game? lol no

These are real rules for legacy fantasy armies in Age of Sigmar. Supposedly according to rumors the non-legacy armies, when they are released, will not have this garbage.

 Polonius wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
I agree with Makumba, why would you pay GW prices for a joke?

to be fair, you dont' have to. The rules are free, and are only for legacy models, so you can use old WFB models in AOS.

it's not a question of paying money for the joke, but having the money you spent be turned into a joke...

I know the rules are free, the miniatures sure were not. But I don't think the money is the target of these jokes.

 Melissia wrote:

 DaKKaLAnce wrote:
Wait, are these rules actually reall or just rumors ?! this is kinda silly to make fantasy a kid game.... I mean this would be fun to do with my son,daughter, etc. maybe even being drunk with friends...But a serious pick up game? lol no

These are real rules for legacy fantasy armies in Age of Sigmar. Supposedly according to rumors the non-legacy armies, when they are released, will not have this garbage.

Did you also get that mad when 7th edition allowed unbound armies? Did you stop playing the game because you were unable to ask your opponent: "let's not play unbound, ok?"

Seriously, if you don't like the silly rules, agree with your opponent to not use the silly rules. There, I fixed it for you. Do you really hate this game just because GW didn't write THE SILLY RULES ARE OPTIONAL in bold letters on every warscroll? Sheesh. It's fine if you don't like how the game plays, or that there are no army composition rules (yet), but complaining about the silly rules is just childish.

Ushtarador wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 DaKKaLAnce wrote:
Wait, are these rules actually reall or just rumors ?! this is kinda silly to make fantasy a kid game.... I mean this would be fun to do with my son,daughter, etc. maybe even being drunk with friends...But a serious pick up game? lol no

These are real rules for legacy fantasy armies in Age of Sigmar. Supposedly according to rumors the non-legacy armies, when they are released, will not have this garbage.

Did you also get that mad when 7th edition allowed unbound armies? Did you stop playing the game because you were unable to ask your opponent: "let's not play unbound, ok?"

Seriously, if you don't like the silly rules, agree with your opponent to not use the silly rules. There, I fixed it for you. Do you really hate this game just because GW didn't write THE SILLY RULES ARE OPTIONAL in bold letters on every warscroll? Sheesh. It's fine if you don't like how the game plays, or that there are no army composition rules (yet), but complaining about the silly rules is just childish.

The problem is not that we can't be bothered to play with different rules, its that this shows how GW thinks of its customer base.
It's quite insulting.

And GW will probably enforce the use of these rules in GW stores, which means that some players will never be able to get a game with the older rules, as GW is their only FLGS.

So the whole thing would not be a problem if GW wrote THOSE RULES ARE OPTIONAL? Or is it insulting that there is an option for silly games when people are in the mood?! I can only speak from personal experience, but we adjust some rules all the time, we create our own scenarios and we modify the army composition rules in the rulebook. All this without GW officially telling us that this is allowed. In fact, I would find it a lot more insulting if GW did not trust us enough to adjust those things for ourselves. And I find it sad that people are insulted by optional rules that are not targeted at them..

I have also never heard of a place enforcing rules like that. As long as you and your opponent agree, you can play whatever scenario and rules you want. If there actually is a store where the manager does not allow it, you shouldn't be frequenting it anyway.

Ushtarador wrote:
So the whole thing would not be a problem if GW wrote THOSE RULES ARE OPTIONAL to make it official.. ?

No. I don't like a game that wants me to act like a child.

No. I don't like a game that wants me to act like a child.

Then agree to not use the silly rules. I also fixed it for you, you're welcome.
If you can't do that, you should contemplate who's being childish here.

AoS = 8th Edition Warhammer 40K.

Too many similarities, too many coincidences, with stuff that GW has been doing over the last year or so.

Making "fun" rules for a player to act goofy to get rerolls or whatever is just... it's not what I want in a game. It's like GW doesn't even take it's players serious anymore. Who at GW really thought it was a good idea for a player with a bigger beard then his opponent get a bonus? What if his opponent is a woman? Or grumbling about how broken a model is and saying bad things about your opponent's army... the list goes on, and it strikes me as incredibly short sighted and lacking in good taste.

It's hard for me to respect GW as a company when they don't even respect me as a player/collector.

So what did they change? What do the players have to "act out"?

It's hard for me to respect GW as a company when they don't even respect me as a player/collector.

How is it disrespectful to include some optional gimmick rules for people who enjoy this kind of stuff. At least at my store there's plenty of people who really enjoy using them in their relaxed games. I'm sad that you feel slighted about something that does not actually impact you. You don't lose anything if you don't use the silly rules and decide to play a serious game after all.

 Melissia wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I dont' think the rule is sexist, but I also think it comes from a place where GW doesn't even think about women, which is somewhat worse.

Unconscious sexism is still sexism. In the "real world", unconscious bias is the most common type.

Only got to page 2 in this forum before responding buuuuut....

Earlier I posted that I will be writting letters to major stakeholders (private equity) in GW.

^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^

Gives me an idea. Using this specific rule, as yet another example of the complete ineptitude of management. To live in the 21st century and make basically gender specific rules is a humongous corporate faux pas. Now, I doubt, Melissa or others of our Sisters are profoundly offended more than an eye roll and a muttered "that figures..." However, this is yet another can of worms for the corporate managemrnt team. A letter writting campaign could potentially get some press on the sexism front. Not too diminish the very obvious and real seventy-two cents on the dollar gender inequality, but THIS could help us change MANAGEMENT of the company we love. Just an idea. No offence to others intended...

 asorel wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
There is a difference between a football fan taking their shirt off to expose their beer belly and a football fan streaking across the pitch.

I believe the point of contention here is that the rules have been changed in such a manner that streaking across the field would contribute to your scoring a touchdown.

Lol yeh I totally agree. I was responding to the people saying that people already look at players as 'odd'. Love the way you put that btw.

 doktor_g wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I dont' think the rule is sexist, but I also think it comes from a place where GW doesn't even think about women, which is somewhat worse.

Unconscious sexism is still sexism. In the "real world", unconscious bias is the most common type.

Only got to page 2 in this forum before responding buuuuut....

Earlier I posted that I will be writting letters to major stakeholders (private equity) in GW.

^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^

Gives me an idea. Using this specific rule, as yet another example of the complete ineptitude of management. To live in the 21st century and make basically gender specific rules is a humongous corporate faux pas. Now, I doubt, Melissa or others of our Sisters are profoundly offended more than an eye roll and a muttered "that figures..." However, this is yet another can of worms for the corporate managemrnt team. A letter writting campaign could potentially get some press on the sexism front. Not too diminish the very obvious and real seventy-two cents on the dollar gender inequality, but THIS could help us change MANAGEMENT of the company we love. Just an idea. No offence to others intended...

Seriously, this is where you would start when talking about sexism? What about almost every humanoid model being caucasian, or about the distinct lack of female miniatures (especially in 40k)? What about almost every distinctly female figure running around half-naked, and the female-only army not having its own codex since forever?
Accusing GW of sexism based on a joke rule that also puts men that are unable to grow a beard, or men that shaved this morning at a disadvantage does not increase your credibility. Especially if putting on a fake beard removes that disadvantage, and even more because it is a completely optional rule! There are many gender issues in many areas, but this really isn't one of them. If you are looking for gender issues in Warhammer, please focus on the real weak spots. Adding this example like that means you don't actually care about gender problems in Warhammer, you just use them to further another agenda. The fact that you apparently didn't think about this before reading Melissia's post does not help either.

Ushtarador wrote:

 doktor_g wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I dont' think the rule is sexist, but I also think it comes from a place where GW doesn't even think about women, which is somewhat worse.

Unconscious sexism is still sexism. In the "real world", unconscious bias is the most common type.

Only got to page 2 in this forum before responding buuuuut....

Earlier I posted that I will be writting letters to major stakeholders (private equity) in GW.

^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^

Gives me an idea. Using this specific rule, as yet another example of the complete ineptitude of management. To live in the 21st century and make basically gender specific rules is a humongous corporate faux pas. Now, I doubt, Melissa or others of our Sisters are profoundly offended more than an eye roll and a muttered "that figures..." However, this is yet another can of worms for the corporate managemrnt team. A letter writting campaign could potentially get some press on the sexism front. Not too diminish the very obvious and real seventy-two cents on the dollar gender inequality, but THIS could help us change MANAGEMENT of the company we love. Just an idea. No offence to others intended...

Seriously, this is where you would start when talking about sexism? What about almost every humanoid model being caucasian, or about the distinct lack of female miniatures (especially in 40k)? What about almost every distinctly female figure running around half-naked, and the female-only army not having its own codex since forever?
Accusing GW of sexism based on a joke rule that also puts men that are unable to grow a beard, or men that shaved this morning at a disadvantage does not increase your credibility. Especially if putting on a fake beard removes that disadvantage, and even more because it is a completely optional rule! There are many gender issues in many areas, but this really isn't one of them. If you are looking for gender issues in Warhammer, please focus on the real weak spots. Adding this example like that means you don't actually care about gender problems in Warhammer, you just use them to further another agenda. The fact that you apparently didn't think about this before reading Melissia's post does not help either.

Actually, if you read his post, he does have an agenda, which is to alert the Shareholders that GW's designers are out of touch. He's not accusing them of sexism, or at least not malicious sexism, so slow your roll a bit.

Again, I meant no offence to you, and yes it was meant to be used as a coercive propagandist cynical strategy to bring about change.

Ushtarador wrote:

No. I don't like a game that wants me to act like a child.

Then agree to not use the silly rules. I also fixed it for you, you're welcome.
If you can't do that, you should contemplate who's being childish here.

The bolded part makes your argument impotent. You need to understand people's opinions are not optional. They represent how people really feel. Yes, They can be changed but not by condescension or mockery. All your really doing in entrenching the opinion you want to change. Mostly out of spite.

Thank you polonius.
Please Ushta, that was your 14th post, please don't pick a fight. I see your deeper point.
Lets play nice?

 doktor_g wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I dont' think the rule is sexist, but I also think it comes from a place where GW doesn't even think about women, which is somewhat worse.

Unconscious sexism is still sexism. In the "real world", unconscious bias is the most common type.

Only got to page 2 in this forum before responding buuuuut....

Earlier I posted that I will be writting letters to major stakeholders (private equity) in GW.

^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^

Gives me an idea. Using this specific rule, as yet another example of the complete ineptitude of management. To live in the 21st century and make basically gender specific rules is a humongous corporate faux pas. Now, I doubt, Melissa or others of our Sisters are profoundly offended more than an eye roll and a muttered "that figures..." However, this is yet another can of worms for the corporate managemrnt team. A letter writting campaign could potentially get some press on the sexism front. Not too diminish the very obvious and real seventy-two cents on the dollar gender inequality, but THIS could help us change MANAGEMENT of the company we love. Just an idea. No offence to others intended...

Off topic, but stop perpetuating the unequal pay myth. Nobody worth their salt takes that idea seriously because it ignores the reason why there's a difference (because of conscious choices made by people to choose family over work).

lustigjh wrote:

 doktor_g wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I dont' think the rule is sexist, but I also think it comes from a place where GW doesn't even think about women, which is somewhat worse.

Unconscious sexism is still sexism. In the "real world", unconscious bias is the most common type.

Only got to page 2 in this forum before responding buuuuut....

Earlier I posted that I will be writting letters to major stakeholders (private equity) in GW.

^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^

Gives me an idea. Using this specific rule, as yet another example of the complete ineptitude of management. To live in the 21st century and make basically gender specific rules is a humongous corporate faux pas. Now, I doubt, Melissa or others of our Sisters are profoundly offended more than an eye roll and a muttered "that figures..." However, this is yet another can of worms for the corporate managemrnt team. A letter writting campaign could potentially get some press on the sexism front. Not too diminish the very obvious and real seventy-two cents on the dollar gender inequality, but THIS could help us change MANAGEMENT of the company we love. Just an idea. No offence to others intended...

Off topic, but stop perpetuating the unequal pay myth. Nobody worth their salt takes that idea seriously because it ignores the reason why there's a difference (because of conscious choices made by people to choose family over work).

I agree, though it seems like this is beginning to veer away from the topic at hand. That being said, I don't think there is much to say regarding the original subject that had not already been explored.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Furthermore, granting people official in game benefits for having a longer beard or moustach is pure sexism

Not really. Sexism implies discrimination that specifically targets women. There are millions of men who either struggle to or outright can't grow beards due to genetics (myself included), so pro-mustache rules hardly targets women specifically.

The rule is stupid, but asserting that it's sexist is like claiming that amusement park rides requiring a height of X to ride them is sexist because women are generally shorter than men.

So, it turns out the game is actually great

 BlaxicanX wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
Furthermore, granting people official in game benefits for having a longer beard or moustach is pure sexism

Not really. Sexism implies discrimination that specifically targets women. There are millions of men who either struggle to or outright can't grow beards due to genetics (myself included), so pro-mustache rules hardly targets women specifically.

The rule is stupid, but asserting that it's sexist is like claiming that amusement park rides requiring a height of X to ride them is sexist because women are generally shorter than men.

So it's facio-mandibular folliclist?

Lol

If only GW could just log on and see this gak. Do you think they'd sit there and say how wonderful everything is now?

Also, where does it say that Beard rules are optional? I hate to YMDC this but unless it specifically states that these rules are optional then RAW they simply aren't. You have to grow a beard to get +1 to your dollies.

Additionally, GW doesn't need to put silly rules into 40k to make it ridiculous. They can just put their ultragrimdark hat on and say "scatbikes".

So lets say players wish to play AoS without the beard rules, do those models get their bonuses still? If not then what exactly is the point of playing " legacy" models? You're not getting any special bonuses so why bother?

This is the part where someone jumps in and kills me with mind bullets. I don't need special bonuses to play my models. I just want a game system that represents massive battles in the fantasy genre. Really I could care less if some snowflake gets plus one to their whatever. The amount of times I have used a named character in either game can be counted on one hand. So that's not the issue for me. For me the issue is that I am the mythical new player who doesn't exist. I want to play 8th edition and I want a new Skaven book. I want High Elf Archers to get an update. I want a Chaos Daemons army, I want a Beastmen army, I wanna play Empire too. I wanted to do these things, but now? Well if everyone is getting hard about AoS who am I left to play WFB with? Nobody, that's who. Who is gonna drag their army to the shop for a game now?

How long before GW has us acting like idiots for special rules in 40k? Its already happening baby!

Now play act like you're a Daemonette and make me a sammich!

 Psienesis wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
Furthermore, granting people official in game benefits for having a longer beard or moustach is pure sexism

Not really. Sexism implies discrimination that specifically targets women. There are millions of men who either struggle to or outright can't grow beards due to genetics (myself included), so pro-mustache rules hardly targets women specifically.

The rule is stupid, but asserting that it's sexist is like claiming that amusement park rides requiring a height of X to ride them is sexist because women are generally shorter than men.

So it's facio-mandibular folliclist?

I think 'trivial' is the most accurate descriptor.

So not only is the whole world a victim of my rich straight white male privilege, i now have to worry about bearded privilege and extrovert privilege!

I fething give up. Life is obviously way too easy for me as it is.

 Ravenous D wrote:
With Age of Sigmar brings rules where the players have to "act out" the rule, besides it being patronizing and insulting its a pretty stupid mechanic to introduce that doesn't help the image nor the perceptions of the feelings GW has towards its customers. After going through it and seeing the mushroom cloud over in fantasy land I cant help but wonder if GW would do such a thing to 40k? Would GW full Nintendo 40k into the stripped down, bumpers installed, kid friendly game?

Dancing and buffoonery for extra rules, yay or nay?

Age Of Sigmar does have that rule? Whoah, do you at least receive any stunt points like it's in Exalted?

 jokerkd wrote:
So, it turns out the game is actually great

I've heard the "rules" were bland and untactical, but not awful overall. The fact there's no points or balance mechanics pretty much means it's not really a "game" though, it's more of a set of guide lines by which you can push your "plastic model collection" around the table and make PEW PEW noises.

99% of the crowd here isn't really against the rules, other than the "dance for nickels" bit (which may or may not be phased out anyways), but the lack of any sort of balance mechanics making it too easy for "that guy" to exploit, and murdering the game for any sort of competitive environment.

I'm not upset at the rules, I'm more annoyed by the lack of effort. A balanced game system helps EVERYONE, casual and hardcore alike.

Also, community driven games are driven by the hardcore in the this era. The hardcore gamers create the blog, the tutorials, the tactical articles, maintain the message boards, organize the gaming nights and tournaments, they are the ones with the tables in their basements and encourage their friends to play...etc. Without the hardcore players content will dry up, and the community will become increasingly isolated and fragmentary causing the game to breakdown and eventually die off.

Ushtarador wrote:
How is it disrespectful to include some optional gimmick

They aren't optional. In order to make full use of the rules for those units, you must abide by those rules.

That's like saying "you shouldn't complain that Eldar Wraith constructs with Strength D weapons aren't bad, you can always just agree with your opponent not to use them", a sentiment that if you tried to push on people would result in you being laughed out the thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DalinCriid wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:
With Age of Sigmar brings rules where the players have to "act out" the rule, besides it being patronizing and insulting its a pretty stupid mechanic to introduce that doesn't help the image nor the perceptions of the feelings GW has towards its customers. After going through it and seeing the mushroom cloud over in fantasy land I cant help but wonder if GW would do such a thing to 40k? Would GW full Nintendo 40k into the stripped down, bumpers installed, kid friendly game?

Dancing and buffoonery for extra rules, yay or nay?

Age Of Sigmar does have that rule? Whoah, do you at least receive any stunt points like it's in Exalted?

Yep, and nope.

It really is as easy as " hey, can we just take all those rules as a given and not have to do the stupid stuff?"

This has worked EVERY time i have played so far. Its amazing what communication can do.

Taking them out completely would also work. But then fateweaver wwouldn't be so fething awesome

 jokerkd wrote:
It really is as easy as " hey, can we just take all those rules as a given and not have to do the stupid stuff?"

This has worked EVERY time i have played so far. Its amazing what communication can do.

Taking them out completely would also work. But then fateweaver wwouldn't be so fething awesome

Rule 0 fallacy. A player having the ability to go through and fix everything that GW screwed up does not change the fact that they screwed up. Consumers choose to purchase professionally-made games because they expect the ruleset to contain a semblance of that professionalism.

I dont know about fantasy, but 40k requires fixing every edition/codex

If you cant bring yourself to play the game without 200 pages of rules, then this game isn't for you

I understand why people are upset. I'd be pissed if they did it to 40k. But you're not going to change anything by complaining.
Either play it or dont. Don't pretend it's unplayable or that you must have 200 pages to tell you how to have fun

 jokerkd wrote:
If you cant bring yourself to play the game without 200 pages of rules, then this game isn't for you

Are you incapable of debating this subject without resorting to absurd straw man arguments? Nobody is demanding 200 pages of rules, we want balanced and functional rules. A game with short and simple rules can be a lot of fun, and 40k would greatly benefit from reducing some of the bloated mess of special rules and exceptions to the special rules. The problem we have with AoS is that GW seems to have spent about 15 minutes writing them and then completely neglected playtesting. Balance is nonexistent, the rules don't function in any sane way (which is ing insane when they're only four pages long!), and the whole thing is full of stupid "mandatory fun" rules.

I believe 40k needs a major revamp; much as I hate the army building aspect of AoS, it does bring a few good things on the table -- the new stats system for example, can counteract all those inv/re animation/whatever saves that are either inadequate or too powerful. Just give them more than three wounds, but still can be killed just as fast.

But if AoS is copied into 40k, well, it won't be the death of it; it's already a kind of collectable products so all they will lose are the strictly gaming crowd. But the game will be dead

 jokerkd wrote:

I understand why people are upset. I'd be pissed if they did it to 40k.

The world you're looking for is "when," not "if." 40k will see a variant of AoS as its next edition, mark my words. Its probably already being written.

 argonak wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:

I understand why people are upset. I'd be pissed if they did it to 40k.

The world you're looking for is "when," not "if." 40k will see a variant of AoS as its next edition, mark my words. Its probably already being written.

And if/when that happens, i will either play it, or i will move to another system. i won't be happy about it, but i also won't spend my time complaining about it on dakka

I don't know, man, I'm already pretty kinetic and frenetic when I play.

If I'm already pelvic thrusting, touching people inappropriately, using the lewdest of hand gestures, bringing up all my worst and most illicit proclivities, spewing obscenities, and generally acting the savage then throwing on some funky tunes to dance to wouldn't be a stretch.

Playing against me, as dscribed by some of my lgs most veteran players, is already akin to playing against Doomrider himself.

 jokerkd wrote:

 argonak wrote:

 jokerkd wrote:

I understand why people are upset. I'd be pissed if they did it to 40k.

The world you're looking for is "when," not "if." 40k will see a variant of AoS as its next edition, mark my words. Its probably already being written.

And if/when that happens, i will either play it, or i will move to another system. i won't be happy about it, but i also won't spend my time complaining about it on dakka

Isn't defending AoS on dakka wasting your time as well?

 BlaxicanX wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
Furthermore, granting people official in game benefits for having a longer beard or moustach is pure sexism

Not really. Sexism implies discrimination that specifically targets women. There are millions of men who either struggle to or outright can't grow beards due to genetics (myself included), so pro-mustache rules hardly targets women specifically.

The rule is stupid, but asserting that it's sexist is like claiming that amusement park rides requiring a height of X to ride them is sexist because women are generally shorter than men.

I wish I hadn't written that with the amount of comments it has carried on. Yes I think it is 'accidentally' sexist or at least discriminatory on some level. I don't have a bee in my bonnet about it though. On the very next page I made a joke about it to show I'm not taking it seriously, as after all - it is just a rule set made by a load of men completely put of touch, not only with their customer base, but also with the world as a whole. If you take people like that seriously, then you will be outraged every moment of the day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Poly Ranger wrote:
Point well made but I don't think that'd go down well with the gf - "so if you want a better chance at winning, you'll have to wear this santa beard throughout the game to make sure you always have the longest beard in case you or anyone else brings a thane. Oh and whilst on the topic, here is an Asterix Moustach. Yes, yes of course you need it in case anybody brings Helsbourg. Also you know that subgame in ring of fire, Snakes-eyes? Well I'm bringing medusa so you really don't want to be making eye contact with me during the game. No! I swear I'm not making it up, GW are involving drinking games in WH now - look here are the rules. Ok, well if you want to even it out, you know that I have a really bad back and kneel rather than bend over to pick things up? Well if you make me kneel to pick up dice at any point during the game you auto win! Yes - even if you only have 1 model left and I haven't suffered a single casualty. Well it must be fair! It's in the rules, see? Ok we can ignore that one if we don't take that character. Ok here's another way to make it easier for you - you can take control of ANY one of my units... but you have to give me cheeky fun time later on. No I'm not making it up, I promise! Look right there - it's in the rules! Braaarghrasghurah!!!!! Huh? Oh that was my braying warcry. Eh? What do you mean you're going out?"

Yeah. I'm glad I'm teaching her 40k.

See look everyone. I poked fun at it. I'm not outraged. Honestly.

There is a simple solution for woman, or even males who don't have much facial hair( those exists too)...

Fake moustache/beards, it costs like 3$, here everyone has his chances.

Also it has been brought up a couple of times i think, those Silly rules are just for the Old models, none of the new models of the Stormcast and Bloodtide factions have these.

Because ALL the models will be discontinued in favor of the new models for the new Factions, like Aelfs, Oruks, Seraphon and all that bs.

 jokerkd wrote:

And if/when that happens, i will either play it, or i will move to another system. i won't be happy about it, but i also won't spend my time complaining about it on dakka

And yet here you are, wasting your time complaining about people on Dakka.

Maybe try discussing things on here. You know, instead of just being condescending and dismissive.

 Melissia wrote:

Ushtarador wrote:

Yep, and nope.

Imagine someone at a tournament calling a judge and saying that his opponent didn't yell waggh loud enough or his stare wasn't manly and dignified enough.