Anyway, just some rambling thoughts that are purely my own, and not intended to hurt anyone...
When Age of Sigmar first hit the shelves, there was a great deal of hand-wringing/arguments and general Internet-based attacks on the game and those happy to dive into it. Things seem to be settling down now, so I will venture this post forward; why I think it might be worth people taking a second look at the game and, if they have already adopted it, what else they can be doing with it.
So, warning: this is a pro-Age of Sigmar post!
Caveat: I know that you can do whatever you like with whatever set of rules you have. I know that. However, rules systems by their nature encourage you to act one way or another on the tabletop, and it is the natural tendencies of Age of Sigmar that I will be addressing.
Second Caveat: I am not saying everyone should play the games the way I do (in fact, it is probably better if some don't!). All I am saying is 'here is another angle, why not roll it around in your head for a bit?' If you don't like what comes out after that and you are happy playing the games you are playing, just ignore me!
It is Not Too Simple... Just four pages of rules? Well, that obviously has to be a game for kids, right? No adult could be challenged by just four pages of rules...
Umm, wrong.
As a full-time games designer, I can tell you that any idiot can make a huge, sprawling complex mess of a rules system. It is simplifying and streamlining rules that takes work. A lot of work. Two great examples of this would be Blood Bowl and Space Hulk - nice simple games, but not without their challenges.
What matters is the interplay between the mechanics and the involvement of players within that framework. But the rules sheet is not the full story. In fact, it is not even the game.
The rules sheet is just the jumping off point. The actual game is to be found in the Warscrolls and, especially, the Battlescrolls; there is more (much more) to this game than four pages. So, if you have looked over the rules sheet and thought there is not too much to get your teeth into - you would be right! However, you are looking at just the absolute core, not the full game. Imagine if someone had just shown you the to hit and wound tables in Fantasy Battle and the first page of the movement phase. There is obviously a lot more to the game, but that core material is pretty simple.
Also, consider this: by making the core material short, simple and (relatively) flat, GW now have the ability to update virtually any aspect of their game, at any time. This, incidentally, means the end of edition updates. They do not even need to update an army book - simply release a new Warscroll or revise an existing one...
Oh, and one more thing to be said - I was watching a couple of Youtube rants last night where a couple of gentlemen were constantly berating Age of Sigmar being aimed at kids. Really hate to burst anyone's bubble, but all Warhammer games are aimed at kids. If you don't think a 12 year old can get his head round Fantasy Battle in any edition then a) you are doing the kid a big dis-service and b) maybe, just maybe, you are forgetting the games you played when you were a teenager.
Let's not kid ourselves, we are playing with toy soldiers.
At the end of the day, what a four page rules system gives you is the ability to play the game rather than the rules. In other words, you will be worrying about whether your unit of Liberators will be able to withstand a third wave of Bloodreavers, rather than trying to work out whether a reform will put them those few millimetres out of the enemy charge arc.
... And There Are Plenty of Tactics Age of Sigmar is no less tactical than Fantasy Battle.
Now, I will qualify that.
In Fantasy Battle, deployment is paramount and the ability to think two, three or four turns ahead is vital - you need to know where each unit is likely to be (or needs to be) and manoeuvre appropriately. In 40k, this is important and a distinct advantage - though maybe a little less than in Fantasy Battle.
Age of Sigmar, with the relative mobility of units does tend more to the 40k side of things. However, tactics are not to be found in movement alone.
What is also of great importance is how units support one another or, as people often put it, the synergy between units. A unit of Dark Reapers is good. A unit of Dark Reapers with Guide on them and Doom on their target is positively lethal.
This is what Age of Sigmar brings to the table in lumps. Almost every unit in every force fits into a greater jigsaw puzzle in some way, and there are many hours to be had in figuring out the best way to do that. And when you have done that, start again, because there are so many other combinations.
Eldar in 40k (and, I would say, Elves in Fantasy Battle) work best when you get the right unit into the right place at the right time to face the right opponent. This is the central ethos, if you will, behind those forces, while other armies do similar things to perhaps lesser degrees. In Age of Sigmar, getting units to work together is paramount.
Combine the elements of unit mobility and unit synergy, and you have a very, very tactical game on your hands with a host of choices every turn.
Stress Relief the First This is a big one for me and, from some posts I have seen on various forums, I am not alone in this.
There is no 'stress' in Age of Sigmar - and this runs on two levels. First, I have not had one rules debate/argument/someone trying to push rules way too far at all in Age of Sigmar. Not one. Everyone understands the rules and just gets on with it. Any ambiguity in the rules set is so minor as to not be a factor (a caveat here - don't try to carry Fantasy Battle conventions with you, as you will run into trouble).
Fantasy Battle is a good rules set (and I should point out that my group is not only currently engaged in a long-running Fantasy Battle campaign, but we are about to start a brand new one - go High Elves!), but it is also a big, sprawling one. Not everyone remembers all the rules all the time, so it is not uncommon to briefly halt a game to look up or clarify some obscure part of the movement phase (it is almost always the movement phase). This causes pauses, interpretations and the occasional argument.
In Age of Sigmar, players have the core rules memorised within two or three games. Give it another two or three games to get that 'locked' in your head, and not only will you never need to go back to the rules again, there will be no rules debating during the game.
Stress Relief the Second The other side of the stress removal is the absence of points. Now, I have played all sorts of games over the past (gulp) few decades, but Warhammer-based games have always featured heavily. As time went on beyond the first editions, this meant points-based games and that meant competition.
Which was fair enough.
However, coming back to a no-points game has been something of a revelation, like you remember something you had once forgotten.
Points-based games mean competition. They encourage it. When you put together a Fantasy Battle force (or 40k, just as guilty), you are trying to put together an army, you will have a tendency to avoid certain units because, for whatever reason, they are not going to work out for you. I am not talking about sub-optimal units (we all include those in our forces) but the ones that you think are just plain bad. You want to put together a decent army that has a reasonable chance of winning, so you want to pick units that will help you do that.
And then (and this is crucial) when you play and lose with such an army, there is a feeling of disappointment, perhaps even failure - the sides were perfectly (yeah, I know) matched and you lost. You got it wrong. You cocked it up.
Age of Sigmar does away with points and, with them, the stress or 'need' to win.
Putting it another way, if you play Age of Sigmar, you will live longer!
Note: I like competitive gaming. I am good at it. But I like this game where the competitiveness is greatly muted.
Field What You Want This is related to the no-points angle, and it has also been raised on various forums.
In both Fantasy Battle and 40k, there are some very nice models that you may want (or already have) for your army but that will never, ever see any table time because the rules for them are just bad. Wyches for Dark Eldar, for example. Storm Guardians in Craftworld Eldar forces (I actually disagree with that, but perceived wisdom and all that). Medusae for Dark Elves. Some people even put Tactical Marines into this category, but I strongly disagree there...
It might get even worse when your army book gets updated and a unit that you once loved to used as been emasculated to the point where you can no longer bring it in a regular force.
With no points-based gaming, that does not matter. You want a wing of Warhawk Riders because you think they look stunning? Bring them along, there really is no downside.
In fact, if you you see a box of models sitting on the shop shelf that you quite fancy, you can now grab it, paint it, and put it straight onto the table without having to worry about its effectiveness or, crucially, without feeling the need to paint up another fifteen near-identical box sets to field a whole force.
Okay, that last might be a stretch. We are hobbyists after all...
Do Scenarios, Not Points Right, first thing here - there is no proper (and no wrong!) way to play any game, so long as you are having fun. There are no units of Gaming Police getting ready to break down your door because you converted Warhammer to a D10 system or whatever.
However, if you have just grabbed a bunch of Warscrolls and used the four page rules sheet, you might have done it wrong
Put another way, if you did that and did not have fun, then clearly something was wrong. But it may not just be the rules that let you down.
I could harp on about narrative but, fundamentally, Age of Sigmar is about a story. You have the wider story of Sigmar's Crusade, and there will be much more to come in campaign books and via the Black Library in the future. However, it is also a story about your army and what it is doing - either in the context of just a single battle or a whole campaign.
What this boils down to is forget playing with just the 4 page rules sheet and nothing else. Forget the various points-based balancing systems that are floating around (though that Laws of War does look pretty good at first glance!).
Pick a scenario from the hardback. Come up with a quick one or two sentence reason of why your army is taking part and why the enemy is your enemy. Perhaps go as far as deciding who the attacker is and who takes the role of defender before you start.
Next, come up with a reasonable force that you could see fighting it.
That is about all you need to do. Leave Tyrion, Archaon and Nagash at home, save them for the really special scenarios. Don't be a dick about the forces you pick. Just choose the units you think your commander in the field would really have at his disposal.
Then play.
If you do all that, you will have given Age of Sigmar a decent try. Maybe it is not for you. Maybe, if you had a disagreeable game, it was for you but not for your opponent. In which case try again.
But do try it. Scenarios (Battlescrolls) is where Age of Sigmar sits.
Incidentally, if it does work out for you, pick another scenario and play with similar (or even the same) force, and figure out how the two battles are linked. Then do the same after that game - before long, you will not only have a campaign running, you will have named your characters and they might even have started to develop personalities. If you are writing brand new scenarios to fit in with your storyline, you have nailed it.
A Different Class of Player Now, this bit could start an argument, but please bear with me.
I am not running anyone down here, nor am I attacking any style of play.
But.
Competitive (in this context, points-based) games attract That Guy. 90% of gamers are not that guy but, as a society, we always have to cater to the 10%.
That Guy wants to win, and is usually a bit of a dick about it, whether it is in attitude, rules-lawyering or army selection. When we do points-based games, we may meet That Guy. We may even, if we are truly honest, be That Guy for brief moments.
Age of Sigmar does not really encourage That Guy. There is little in Age of Sigmar that welcomes That Guy. That Guy may not look twice at Age of Sigmar.
Which is good news for the rest of us!
Basically, I am saying that when you play Age of Sigmar, you may have a better chance to play against people who just want to push some models around the table and maybe continue the story of their great warband and its leader. You may never meet That Guy.
This is not to say, of course, that you cannot do both styles of gaming. You can still play Warhammer Fantasy and Age of Sigmar.
I am...
You just bring a different style of play to both.
But... Sigmarines! But are GW not just trying to bring about a Fantasy style of 40k? Are the Hammers of Sigmar not just Ultramarines by another name?
Well, you can draw all sorts of parallels. At the end of the day it is still Warhammer: Age of Sigmar, and will still retain the look, feel and polish of other Warhammer games.
And yes, GW will push the Stormcast Eternals forward ahead of everything else because they bring the Awesome (YMMV, of course, but that is why other armies exist...).
However, this new background is only just starting. Think back to 1st edition Fantasy Battle or 40k, and how sparse things were then and, importantly, how they were built upon. You cannot, as a writer, just magically create a whole living, breathing universe. Like a fine wine, it takes time for a setting to fully awaken.
However, keep an eye on what GW brings out, in terms of background, over the next few months. They obviously have plans in this direction, for both characters and events.
The book in the starter set is really just a primer. The hardback adds a little more (the most fluff is in the scenarios section - read and play the scenarios!). Keep an eye on White Dwarf, as those articles are bringing to light aspects of the background that the books have not really touched upon yet. Read the Black Library novels and shorts - these, above all else, are bringing the setting to life at the moment.
And keep an eye on the range of hardbacks that start this week - if you are expecting huge blocks of rules and units, I think you may be disappointed. I think these books will be more about the storyline and scenarios (both in print and encouraging you to make up your own), and this will be where the heart of Age of Sigmar will lie. Not on the latest, greatest Codex and its killer units, but on the next stage of the story and how it can be played out on your table.
And what if you are not keen on the story? Well, there seems to be three main story lines being pushed right now (in three different realms) giving you three separate, though related, campaigns. And if they do not get you going - make up your own.
That, perhaps, is the real aim of Age of Sigmar.
We Ain't Seen it All Yet It really is okay to say 'I don't know.' It is also okay to say 'I am not sure about Age of Sigmar right now, I think I will wait.'
That may be the most sensible route between diving headlong into a new game and completely rejecting it out of hand (and playing just a couple of games with the four page rules sheet alone is still out of hand...).
The reason is that, aside from a few people at GWHQ, no one really knows yet what Age of Sigmar is going to be. Given what I know of GW though, we have not yet seen a fraction of what this game is going to be able to do. Big long campaigns? Siege rules? Gods on the battlefield? Underground warfare with interchangeable tiles to make new caverns and caves?
We just don't know.
For my part, I am quite excited at the idea of a (near) clean slate, of being able to explore the setting as it develops without the huge weight of baggage the Old World had (remember, I am still exploring the Old World, in both Fantasy Battle and Fantasy Roleplay, this does not have to be a binary choice!). I even changed my style of painting for the new game, though that might be going too far for some!
I guess what I am trying to say in a very long-winded manner is this.
* If you tried Age of Sigmar and have bought into the story-led, scenario-driven idea of gaming, great! I want you in my group!
* If you tried Age of Sigmar but thought it too simple, light or lacklustre, give it just one more try with the ideas above - there may be a little more to this game than was first shown to you.
* You do not need to choose between Fantasy Battle and Age of Sigmar, or competitive gaming and narrative gaming - you can do both. These games scratch different itches.
* You do not need to make your mind up yet. Check back in a while, maybe at the start of the New Year. There might be something in Age of Sigmar by that point that catches your imagination. Or maybe not.
I think that needing a post such as this to defend the game and convince people its a good game, in itself suggests that there are serious issues with a game.
If it's good, people will play it, if its bad people will not play it. If its offensively bad, people will be very vocal about it.
For me as a fantasy player, it has VERY big shoes to fill, and it has failed in every single way. Yes the rules are VERY simplistic. I'm positive that any decent wargamer with a decent grasps of maths could have put together the core rules of AoS in a day or two.
And the whole thing about giving AoS a try because its scenario driven? WHFB is can easily be scenario driven. Heck any wargame can, so that is not a selling point.
You are correct though, you don't need to choose between WHFB and AoS. In my case and many people I know, WHFB is the game we are chosing. Those of us who also play 40k can get our AoS itch scratched playing 40k with our Bolt Storm... sorry I meant Storm Bolters sigmari... sorry Marines.
It doesn't matter how you word it, AoS is lazy. The ruleset is lazy and simplistic. The only flavour is through the warscrolls which in themselves are all lazy and simplistic. AoS strikes me similar to D&D 4th edition. Where you could have the Wizards fireball, Fighters whirly death spin attack and the Monks kungfu butterfly kick attack, etc, which are just reworded descriptions of the same effect.
Anyone with a decent understanding of maths and numbers can understand the mechanics of AoS. Those mechanics are painfully basic. That and the absolute destruction of decades of lore and background means the game has nothing in it for many players.
chnmmr wrote: I think that needing a post such as this to defend the game and convince people its a good game, in itself suggests that there are serious issues with a game.
If it's good, people will play it, if its bad people will not play it. If its offensively bad, people will be very vocal about it.
For me as a fantasy player, it has VERY big shoes to fill, and it has failed in every single way. Yes the rules are VERY simplistic. I'm positive that any decent wargamer with a decent grasps of maths could have put together the core rules of AoS in a day or two.
And the whole thing about giving AoS a try because its scenario driven? WHFB is can easily be scenario driven. Heck any wargame can, so that is not a selling point.
You are correct though, you don't need to choose between WHFB and AoS. In my case and many people I know, WHFB is the game we are chosing. Those of us who also play 40k can get our AoS itch scratched playing 40k with our Bolt Storm... sorry I meant Storm Bolters sigmari... sorry Marines.
It doesn't matter how you word it, AoS is lazy. The ruleset is lazy and simplistic. The only flavour is through the warscrolls which in themselves are all lazy and simplistic. AoS strikes me similar to D&D 4th edition. Where you could have the Wizards fireball, Fighters whirly death spin attack and the Monks kungfu butterfly kick attack, etc, which are just reworded descriptions of the same effect.
Anyone with a decent understanding of maths and numbers can understand the mechanics of AoS. Those mechanics are painfully basic. That and the absolute destruction of decades of lore and background means the game has nothing in it for many players.
Agreed and exalted.
Also, I have a problem with the "but all miniatures games are for kids, guys! We're playing with toy soldiers, after all" argument. Just because a game can be played by children doesn't mean it's meant for children. I played baseball in Little League when I was a kid. Does that mean all the Major League players should stop training and taking their seasons so seriously?
AoS might not be designed for children, but it is a ruleset that allows for the minimum amount of effort to be made while still being able to call it a "ruleset". It exists purely to push around the models GW expects you to buy, which is the extent to which they care about your interaction with the HHHobby.
I think people have missed the point here. To my reading, that post is focussed towards people who approached AoS with previous experience of WFB and expectations of it being on a par.
If you try and play AoS like WFB, it won't work, your itch won't be scratched.
If you play AoS as-is and look for where that takes you, it'll fare better.
This is somewhat borne out by the majority of forum goers who are quite vocal about it's failings are obviously previous WFB players, current or otherwise.
What is interesting is that the pure 40k (or other systems) who never bothered with WFB previously seem to be the more positive views on it and are giving it a go.
I'm not here to argue any viewpoint is wrong or right, but the WFB legacy has definitely placed expectations on the game that were quite clearly never intended to be met.
After all, even atvthenmost cynical level - WFB wasn't making GW enough money in their opinion, so why would they try the same thing again? Of course it's different.
Whether people like it or not is down to them; if you've gone into trying it with no preconceptions and an open mind, that's all you can do.
If you haven't, then read the article again.
RoperPG wrote: I think people have missed the point here. To my reading, that post is focussed towards people who approached AoS with previous experience of WFB and expectations of it being on a par.
If you try and play AoS like WFB, it won't work, your itch won't be scratched.
If you play AoS as-is and look for where that takes you, it'll fare better.
This is somewhat borne out by the majority of forum goers who are quite vocal about it's failings are obviously previous WFB players, current or otherwise.
What is interesting is that the pure 40k (or other systems) who never bothered with WFB previously seem to be the more positive views on it and are giving it a go.
I'm not here to argue any viewpoint is wrong or right, but the WFB legacy has definitely placed expectations on the game that were quite clearly never intended to be met.
After all, even atvthenmost cynical level - WFB wasn't making GW enough money in their opinion, so why would they try the same thing again? Of course it's different.
Whether people like it or not is down to them; if you've gone into trying it with no preconceptions and an open mind, that's all you can do.
If you haven't, then read the article again.
You're right generally. To me the biggest issue with AoS is that it's a replcement for a completely different game. It is simply too different in lore, aesthetics and background. IF AoS was a seperate game that didn't not override WHFB, I'd probably be more leneant towards it and forgiving of its basic ruleset. But no, it is replacing (in my opinion,) a far more complex, rich and in-depth game with something almost unreconizable. It's like deciding 40k needed movement blocks, facing and the WHFB movement system. Also lets destroy the universe, the emperor has died, chaos has won, Marines are now a fractured 'race' and the main game force has come from a portal and look awfully like humanoid reptiles.
chnmmr wrote: I think that needing a post such as this to defend the game and convince people its a good game, in itself suggests that there are serious issues with a game.
If it's good, people will play it, if its bad people will not play it. If its offensively bad, people will be very vocal about it.
It's not just when a game is offensively bad that people are very vocal about it. People are very vocal when something changes too.
For me as a fantasy player, it has VERY big shoes to fill, and it has failed in every single way. Yes the rules are VERY simplistic. I'm positive that any decent wargamer with a decent grasps of maths could have put together the core rules of AoS in a day or two.
I can show you a couple dozen artists who can paint Rembrandt's or Picasso's paintings. Everyone with enough painting skills can copy an already existing painting and everyone with a brain can come up with SOME game rules. WFB rules weren't brilliant either. Nor are those of Warmachine - they're literally just "roll over enemy's stats" along with a couple other rules and destructible steam golem parts. Anyone can come up with a system like that, right? And yet it's one of the best, most competitive systems on the market. X-Wing? Man, that's just moving toy planes using fixed movement templates and, boy, you can't even shoot BEFORE moving! Anyone can come up with a D20 P&P RPG system too, D&D is not all that bright. Get the gist? Anyone can come up with anything, especially if something like that already exist, but a simple idea like AoS can still work. It lacks a couple rules, but it's literally a couple of them. The system is unfinished, not bad - when GW updates it (that's what the PDF system is for, supposedly) it will have all the things it lacked as AoS (so, no, it won't become WFB again).
You are correct though, you don't need to choose between WHFB and AoS. In my case and many people I know, WHFB is the game we are chosing. Those of us who also play 40k can get our AoS itch scratched playing 40k with our Bolt Storm... sorry I meant Storm Bolters sigmari... sorry Marines.
What I love about anegdotes is that they're not really any arguments, even though they sound like one. Your couple of friends prefers WFB, my couple of friends prefer AoS. There's no right side here.
That and the absolute destruction of decades of lore and background means the game has nothing in it for many players.
While I see why people might get angry with the change for various reasons (they grew up with it, like me, and don't want to see it end or they just started playing WFB because of the world and it got destroyed), I still don't really mind it changing personally. People cried and whined that GW never progressed with their storyline, and now that they did (no, it wasn't sudden, the whole End Times progressed with each book) and the clock hit midnight, people cry and whine that GW decided to do it. If someone gets worked up over that, then it's quite silly, because you still can use your current models and play AoS battles set in the "World-That-Was" just like you could play Lord of the Rings battles using Hobbit miniatures. And if it's the game changing that you don't like... well, stick to 8th ed. Or KoW. Or whatever else comes out.
GW had the right to kill WFB just like McDonald's can discontinue any kind of burger they wish if they think it's a good idea and customers can do nothing about it. That's real life, people have to deal with changes, nothing is eternal. AoS will die and get replaced with another system if GW doesn't die and it's place isn't taken by another company. Deal with it.
P.s. - I know I haven't replied to all of the points you made, like the fact that you claim this system to be lazy - I both agree and disagree, in a way. The warscrolls must've taken some work to design and they work very well with the rules. The only issues I see with AoS right now are missing rules that will make it an actually good game. And it doesn't really need all that much - fix summoning, add cover, expand magic, remove initiative, make army composition guidelines or balance 1 wound infantry against each other and it'll be one of the best games for casual, fun play. An ultimate beer and pretzels title on the shelves. See - it is not trying to be competitive, you can clearly notice that, and if GW did not intend i to be so, then don't expect that. Sure, it could've been, but if it was GW's decision, then this is what the game is about, nothing else. Either like it or move on. Or be constructive with your criticism and say what could've been done better/how to fix it rather than whine on the forums calling it lazy. Try to contribute, suggest changes that would make it better as a game it tries to be.
Neither pointless whining nor blindly stating that it's great are helpful. If you just come here to say it sucks, you've wasted your time, your keyboard's durability and oxygen your brain used to come up with that reply, so you should go apologize to the hard-working plants. I believe that constructive criticism is really the only way to go if you want to make something better.
I'm sorry, I have nothing constructive to say about AoS. I have nothing supportive to say about it. I loathe the game in every way. I have tried the game, I've read the rules over and over. There is nothing attracting me to it that 40k doesn't already do, and I'm not interested in playing 2 similar games.
Actually I lie, I sorta like the winged Sigmarines and find the little griffon thing to be adorable. Sadly its not anywhere near enough to make me get excited over this game.
Yes it is GWs decision. I don't have to like it, nor support it. I've thankfully purchased what I need to have my two WHFB armies with enough options to not grow stale and I will be sticking to 8th along with a number of my other friends. AoS will be at the bottom of our list of wargames to try. seriously. A number of us have picked up War of the Rings and Frostgrave. We also still play 40k and we are happy with that.
As far as we're concerned AoS exists to be made fun of in general conversation. Currently its A** of Sigmar, and that suits us just fine.
chnmmr wrote: It's like deciding 40k needed movement blocks, facing and the WHFB movement system. Also lets destroy the universe, the emperor has died, chaos has won, Marines are now a fractured 'race' and the main game force has come from a portal and look awfully like humanoid reptiles.
Would play. Slightly more seriously, AOS-ing 40k would get me to come back to it. Dumber rules would help return it to a time when we were able to just wallow in the GrimDark Mayhem of it all
------------------
On the topic at hand, I'll exalt the OP's post, because I agree on several points. I don't think AOS has that much depth - certainly not enough to maintain the vibrant mental energy outside of the game that WHFB, W40k and other list-centric games do - but I also don't think it's totally brain dead or worthless. I also look forward to playing more scenarios, even simple objective-based games ala 40k 3-4E, as I expect those games are far more compelling than 'beat 'em up' AOS matches. And the less we say about Sudden Death the better
Like other posters though, I still feel the lingering pain of obliterating WHFB and replacing it with a simpler, starkly different game - but one that constantly echoes the lost, probing the wound with promises of something we once loved. Of course we can, and do, still play 8E. But.
@ OP excellent post. Well thought out and well said and loving your stormcast, looking good!
Second post lol he didn't do this to defend AoS he donr it as his view on it. Its laughable you think AoS needs defended, defended from what exactly. The game is fine and people are enjoying it and playing it. Couldn't say that about fantasy before hand. Game was s mess. GW saved their fantasy setting by bringing in AoS and destroying the waste that was. Yeah lots of people are butt hurt but frankly they had it coming. Fantasy was a drain on gw and the "players" weren't buying so they killed it off. GW will get money either way as AoS is doing well.
You may not like AoS and not buy it but no one was buying fantasy before do little to no difference. AoS on the other hand has totally revitalized fantasy and made it relevant. Nee players are coming in, old players are returning and people like me who gave up on fantasy are coming back also.
This is the best thing GW have done in years. If you don't like it, don't play it. Simple
Unfortunately for you old fantasy players AoS is popular and people are playing it.
Be happy with old fantasy and let others be happy with AoS.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: He was saying that other games (sports) are inherently more serious and deserve more respect than tabletop games.
I say thee nay.
That... that wasn't what I was saying. At all. I'm honestly confused as to how you got that out of what I wrote.
You said that just because a game can be played by children, doesn't mean it was made for children. Then pointed to sports as a reference stating that professional baseball players shouldn't take their sport less seriously just because you played it as a child. My answer is yes, they should. It is a game, and should assuredly not be taken seriously by anyone. They play with a ball, I play with action figures. We are both enjoying a pass time the same way children do because that is what it was created to do, cause enjoyment.
Didn't mean to be rude, I work in a factory environment and have to defend my hobby from 50+ year old men who don't believe in anything but work, drinking, and sports. Went into "protect my hobby" mode there
Motograter wrote: @ OP excellent post. Well thought out and well said and loving your stormcast, looking good!
Second post lol he didn't do this to defend AoS he donr it as his view on it. Its laughable you think AoS needs defended, defended from what exactly. The game is fine and people are enjoying it and playing it. Couldn't say that about fantasy before hand. Game was s mess. GW saved their fantasy setting by bringing in AoS and destroying the waste that was. Yeah lots of people are butt hurt but frankly they had it coming. Fantasy was a drain on gw and the "players" weren't buying so they killed it off. GW will get money either way as AoS is doing well.
You may not like AoS and not buy it but no one was buying fantasy before do little to no difference. AoS on the other hand has totally revitalized fantasy and made it relevant. Nee players are coming in, old players are returning and people like me who gave up on fantasy are coming back also.
This is the best thing GW have done in years. If you don't like it, don't play it. Simple
Unfortunately for you old fantasy players AoS is popular and people are playing it.
Be happy with old fantasy and let others be happy with AoS.
Sorry I can't. The AoS people supposedly like (I've seen very few people play it in my area thankfully,) came with the destruction of everything I loved before. I can not and will not like it. I will not support it, and will actively speak out against it. You can call me whatever you want, disagree with me, or agree with me. Call me names for taking a 'game about toy soldiers seriously, Whatever. AoS has replaced a very different game I loved and spent countless hours and money into. If I knew years ago this was to be the fate of fantasy, I'd be alot richer (having bought no fantasy,) or playing a different game. WHFB has been a big part of my life, and one of the games that brought me into the hobby in the first place. I've watched my collection grow and painting skill improve. Heck I've even played the roleplay games based on the setting. That setting is now gone and will never be expanded on again. It has now been replaced by lazy and boring tripe.
You said that just because a game can be played by children, doesn't mean it was made for children. Then pointed to sports as a reference stating that professional baseball players shouldn't take their sport less seriously just because you played it as a child. My answer is yes, they should. It is a game, and should assuredly not be taken seriously by anyone. They play with a ball, I play with action figures. We are both enjoying a pass time the same way children do because that is what it was created to do, cause enjoyment.
Games can be taken seriously if they are played to a higher level than what children would play at. To play in the high leagues for sports requires training and physical prowess, and sports players can't be faulted for that.
Wargames can reward similar high level play, although via mental prowess. I can easily come away from some games mentally fatigued because I spent three hours continually thinking hard - which is fun for me. In the same way I can sit down and play a beer and pretzels game that doesn't tax me in any way.
Miniature wargaming comes from a mixed heritage of fun and serious (Little Wars and Kriegspiel, respectively), so trying to paint the entire hobby with such a large brush as "It's all a children's game!" is somewhat insulting.
Regardless of any of that. I think Mongoose has another problem with his post, and it's the "wait and see" attitude. Were this coming from any other company, AoS wouldn't get the time of day. And its up-front presentation is still lackluster, along with the fact that this "brave new world" is getting plenty of repackages from the old one.
The expectation that GW will bring out actual campaign books or anything that will improve AoS seems to go against what we're seeing right now - expensive art books with tiny amounts of rules. Not to mention that GW's last big campaign only seemed to hasten 8th Edition's death in a search for more money.
Chnmmr: nothing is keeping you from continuing on with playing in the old world. People are readily playing Horus heresy and it is set 10000 years in the past. Please, keep painting, keep playing, try AoS or keep at 8th ed. Nobody would tell you to stop, you shouldn't let the introduction of new fluff keep you from your enjoyment.
Infinite array: the only difference between little league and the big leagues is how well you play. The rules are simple and straightforward. The players don't need extra rules to make them feel like they are playing a higher level of game.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Infinite array: the only difference between little league and the big leagues is how well you play. The rules are simple and straightforward. The players don't need extra rules to make them feel like they are playing a higher level of game.
Oh, thank you! Actually, take my sports argument and toss it out the window, because you made me think of a better example - let's look at board games instead, since they act much like miniature wargaming in that same sense.
We've all played board games as kids, right? Chutes & Ladders, Candyland, LIFE, Stratego, Risk - standard stuff. But it's difficult to make the assessment that "Board games are for kids" when there are games out there with varying levels of rules complexity. There are games that kids can play, but at the same time you get people who take their board gaming seriously.
... Really hate to burst anyone's bubble, but all Warhammer games are aimed at kids...
Sammy; Billy, what's your favorite part of Warhammer?
Billy: I like the dark parody of theocratic bureaucracy in the post Pax Romana/pre enlightenment era.
Johnny; Cool! I like the oblique references to 80's British politics and comic culture.
Mandi; Does anyone think the hermaphroditic rape goddess goes a little overboard?
Sammy; Naw, I' seen worse on Dora!
I think almost everyone who is going to be swayed by AoS has already been swayed. I mean people can keep producing these types of blogs trying to explain why people should give AoS a try over and over, month after month but all the info has already been pretty much put forward for both sides of the argument. Your post really was just saying what the other AoS supporters have already said many time.
My friend loves AoS and we played fantasy a lot I don't like AoS im not going to convince him to stop liking it just as he can't convince me to force myself to enjoy it. I don't see the point in these 'trying to sway opinion' posts anymore tbh. You're not going to convert anyone who dislikes AoS to liking it just like someone who doesn't like it isn't going to convince a fan that its actually a bad game.
I think the OP brings up legitimate points. I started with fantasy in the mid 90s my first army was Chaos Dwarfs, so you could say Ive been bitten a few times by this kind of thing. I see this smaller skirmish like game, look at all my Fantasy models and groan. But you know what? Some people like a battle laid out for them (or skirmish) and it seems like thats what Gdub plans... to release occasional campaign books like this first one about Sigmar's hammer. And I think Im cool with that.
I have a friend I got in to the hobby (40k), and rather them just bombard him with the rules and play, I did iit like a story. I would hand him a bunch of guys, tell him the mission and we played. On paper I made the two army lists. When AoS came out and I was explaining how there were no point costs and you simply "forge the narrative" his response was positive. He said "it sounds like a game id like because you just set all your models up and play." His response surprised me at first but then I realized that I had been doing that with him all along with 40k. Even now, He cant stand just playing a game. He wants narrative.
As much as I hate the simplicity and what they did to fantasy, I'm interested. Hey If I want to play old Fantasy I still have the books. No one took them from me.
I agree with the op on pretty much every point. I really like the aspect of scenarios and how it is fun driven and not super competative.
8th edition players should be thankful as gw will still produce their models now (fantasy was failing bad).
Oh and I really LOVE that silver/gold/gray color scheme. I could have sworn that I've seen a couple units in that unique color scheme on ebay. I may have to take some ideas from that beautiful paint scheme!
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Infinite array: the only difference between little league and the big leagues is how well you play. The rules are simple and straightforward. The players don't need extra rules to make them feel like they are playing a higher level of game.
Oh, thank you! Actually, take my sports argument and toss it out the window, because you made me think of a better example - let's look at board games instead, since they act much like miniature wargaming in that same sense.
We've all played board games as kids, right? Chutes & Ladders, Candyland, LIFE, Stratego, Risk - standard stuff. But it's difficult to make the assessment that "Board games are for kids" when there are games out there with varying levels of rules complexity. There are games that kids can play, but at the same time you get people who take their board gaming seriously.
When you look at the games listed, risk springs to the fore to me. How many pages of rules are needed for risk? How serious and competitive does that game get? How long can 5 full grown adults play that game whilst trying to win? Now how many times have you seen a group of 5-8 year olds sit down and play to the end?
It is a game with simple rules, but one with near endless possibilities for competition and fun to be had. How is that game a classic with fans the world over, but age of sigmar is childish and shouldn't be taken seriously?
chnmmr wrote: I think that needing a post such as this to defend the game and convince people its a good game, in itself suggests that there are serious issues with a game.
If it's good, people will play it, if its bad people will not play it. If its offensively bad, people will be very vocal about it.
For me as a fantasy player, it has VERY big shoes to fill, and it has failed in every single way. Yes the rules are VERY simplistic. I'm positive that any decent wargamer with a decent grasps of maths could have put together the core rules of AoS in a day or two.
And the whole thing about giving AoS a try because its scenario driven? WHFB is can easily be scenario driven. Heck any wargame can, so that is not a selling point.
You are correct though, you don't need to choose between WHFB and AoS. In my case and many people I know, WHFB is the game we are chosing. Those of us who also play 40k can get our AoS itch scratched playing 40k with our Bolt Storm... sorry I meant Storm Bolters sigmari... sorry Marines.
It doesn't matter how you word it, AoS is lazy. The ruleset is lazy and simplistic. The only flavour is through the warscrolls which in themselves are all lazy and simplistic. AoS strikes me similar to D&D 4th edition. Where you could have the Wizards fireball, Fighters whirly death spin attack and the Monks kungfu butterfly kick attack, etc, which are just reworded descriptions of the same effect.
Anyone with a decent understanding of maths and numbers can understand the mechanics of AoS. Those mechanics are painfully basic. That and the absolute destruction of decades of lore and background means the game has nothing in it for many players.
Great post
Most of the thing said in the op makes sense. I'm a very causual, non-competitive gamer, and I like playing story based games. Bbut the problem is that you can do most of these things with any other games (scenario based games, no point value), and you'll have a lot more fun playing these games than AoS, since their rules are more interesting and creative. And while I agree that it can be fun to play a game without any point cost, not having point costs for units is ,imo, extremely lazy, and makes it feel like this ruleset is a beta.
AoS is a straightforward, basic games. And frankly, it is very boring. I don't see anything that this game have that makes it unique, creative or fun. The game is all about rolling 4+ or 3+. Pretty much every special rules seems to be either direct damage or a rerolling 1s. The only unique thing that it has, are these pathetic silly rules that makes you scream the same stupid lines over and over again, or dancing, or showing pictures of an animal in your cellphone, and frankly, I don't see anyone, except for borderline persons, who will be amused by doing this.
And concerning storyed games, at the moment, I must say that I don't think that AoS lend itself to these kind of games, since we know barely nothing about the factions except for the sigmarines and the chaos (and sylvaneth, to a lesser extent). So unless you play the same chaos vs sigmarines matchup again and agains, it's very difficult to have an engaging narrative games.
The only redeeming point of AoS for me is that the miniatures are stunning (even if they are rather boring, since it seems that they only release the same few figs iover and over again). And even then, the only way I would ever buy some is too convert over to 40k. As for the game in itself, I would only play it if i had a young kid that I wanted to introduce to wargaming. Barring that, I sincerly dont see how a relatively mature person could prefer this game rulewise over the alternative that are available on the market.
@MongooseMatt - A very thoughtful and well-written post.
What you wrote is reflective of a couple of groups of AoS players that I know of who really enjoy the game -- the three standout "features" that you spoke of are:
1. The story aspect of the game.
2. "That Guy" just isn't drawn to the game. So the chance of running into "That Guy" is near zero.
3. You can just play with whatever models you feel like, and don't have to stress about list building.
Now... I have to say that I've given AoS a shot, and the game isn't for me (though the Sigmarite models are). I like #1, I like #2 (though playing privately, TFG isn't an issue), but I spend too much time obsessing over building lists to strip it out of my gaming.
It's not even so much that I want to play 1850 vs 1850 points. Usually our games are not that; they're mostly scenario (not story) based 40k, and often, the points are hugely disproportionate. But I like making lists it scratches some weird nerd itch.
Now, regarding the story:
Yes, anyone can write a story and play it with any game system. BUT. Who here has played RPGs where a GM wrote a BAD story? What about the GM that just wings it and makes stuff up as he goes along? Now.. what if you had to make up a story.. and had no GM?!
The nice thing about the AoS story arc is that you're playing armies within the context of a storyline, and the storyline is provided to you. Art, fluff, and all. And if you like that (as my wife does), it is not easily replaceable by players making it up as they go along.
Personally, I am enjoying reading the AoS hardcovers (I just need my wife to open up her copy of Ghal Maraz so that I can steal it and read it), and reading through the scenarios more than I am playing the game
2. "That Guy" just isn't drawn to the game. So the chance of running into "That Guy" is near zero.
I think 'competitive' tfg won't be drawn to the game. And good riddance. Thst said. He isnt the only class of tfg. I can imagine a lot of whiny 'casual at all costs' tfg's that will make your games in aos miserable as well.
My group of friends and I LIKE to compete. We want a structure so we can outplan, outthink, and fine-tune our force to beat our opponents. AoS needs some guidelines for us competitive players. Everyone likes to win. Do you have to win every time? No. It's bad for you-builds a serious ego problem. But nobody likes to lose every time either. Builds low self esteem. But humanity has always been about competition. If you don't want to compete, you need to accept that YOU'RE the outlier. You're the odd man out. And yes, from all appearances, GW has opted to cater to you. I don't know why. It's not a slight, it's not an insult, it's just an odd business choice why you'd focus on 10% of the population, rather than 90%. And yes, I'd say about 10% of the population falls under the "non-competitive" title.
My friends and I are sticking to the Azyr compendium, written by the same developer of AoS, before GW told him to scrap points. He's been making it a living system, tweaking it as he finds overpowered items like Necrosphynxes. You want living errata? He's doing it. You want units gaining points as soon as they come out? Right in his free rules.
I've played AoS with only putting a cap on # of wounds, due to time limitations. It works, but I still had a nightmare of a time dealing with a Bloodthirster in Game 1, and my opponent couldn't deal with summoning madness in Game 2. The rules in Azyr make it feel more like Warhammer in the Warmachine world. Every unit is useful, every unit can do some crazy stuff, it's all about army synergy. With a point structure. That's the necessary part. Structure. I LOVE the combat aspect of Sigmar. Blows away classic Warhammer. No "I'll do this combat first, finish, do that combat". No. Now, you pick individual units in combats and break down based on threat level. It's a tough choice at times, deciding what you can be willing to lose. So combat is far better now. And the hit/wound/kill is easier. Which is nice. Helps get new people in. Free warscrolls with all the rules right on them, books for fluff and scenario purposes? Yes please. The only thing ever missing was structure. So I'll enjoy my Azyr rules, the rules that were originally supposed to be AoS. You enjoy AoS as GW saw fit to unleash on us. To be honest, I'd have been happy if GW proper released Azyr for us competitive players and the casuals got the 4 page rules and scrolls only. Everyone would be happy. But what can you do? Just play the rules you like, really. We're gamers. We'll find a way.
You need to realise that the structure allowing for competition is there. Your maximum model allowance is based on deployment zone size, your attempt to out think your opponent's list happens as you put models on the table from your collection.
Tournaments would do well to simply limit the deployment zone size (say 3'x6") if they want a balanced game.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: You need to realise that the structure allowing for competition is there. Your maximum model allowance is based on deployment zone size, your attempt to out think your opponent's list happens as you put models on the table from your collection.
Tournaments would do well to simply limit the deployment zone size (say 3'x6") if they want a balanced game.
Wrong. Deployment size has nothing to do with balance as it barely has any relation to actual unit strength on the battlefield, the intention certain unit types are taken for etc.
My friends and I are sticking to the Azyr compendium, written by the same developer of AoS, before GW told him to scrap points.
Ok, I registered just to ask you:
1. Is this the Azyr compendium that you're referring to?
2. How do you now that he has had some part in the design of AoS? Has he stated so or is there another source that claims it? (I'm relly in the dark about this and it's very interesting to me)
timetowaste85 wrote: My group of friends and I LIKE to compete. We want a structure so we can outplan, outthink, and fine-tune our force to beat our opponents. AoS needs some guidelines for us competitive players. Everyone likes to win. Do you have to win every time? No. It's bad for you-builds a serious ego problem. But nobody likes to lose every time either. Builds low self esteem. But humanity has always been about competition. If you don't want to compete, you need to accept that YOU'RE the outlier. You're the odd man out. And yes, from all appearances, GW has opted to cater to you. I don't know why. It's not a slight, it's not an insult, it's just an odd business choice why you'd focus on 10% of the population, rather than 90%. And yes, I'd say about 10% of the population falls under the "non-competitive" title.
My friends and I are sticking to the Azyr compendium, written by the same developer of AoS, before GW told him to scrap points. He's been making it a living system, tweaking it as he finds overpowered items like Necrosphynxes. You want living errata? He's doing it. You want units gaining points as soon as they come out? Right in his free rules.
I've played AoS with only putting a cap on # of wounds, due to time limitations. It works, but I still had a nightmare of a time dealing with a Bloodthirster in Game 1, and my opponent couldn't deal with summoning madness in Game 2. The rules in Azyr make it feel more like Warhammer in the Warmachine world. Every unit is useful, every unit can do some crazy stuff, it's all about army synergy. With a point structure. That's the necessary part. Structure. I LOVE the combat aspect of Sigmar. Blows away classic Warhammer. No "I'll do this combat first, finish, do that combat". No. Now, you pick individual units in combats and break down based on threat level. It's a tough choice at times, deciding what you can be willing to lose. So combat is far better now. And the hit/wound/kill is easier. Which is nice. Helps get new people in. Free warscrolls with all the rules right on them, books for fluff and scenario purposes? Yes please. The only thing ever missing was structure. So I'll enjoy my Azyr rules, the rules that were originally supposed to be AoS. You enjoy AoS as GW saw fit to unleash on us. To be honest, I'd have been happy if GW proper released Azyr for us competitive players and the casuals got the 4 page rules and scrolls only. Everyone would be happy. But what can you do? Just play the rules you like, really. We're gamers. We'll find a way.
Lol,..ok
First off can you site your source for 90% competitive vs 10% non-competitive statement?
Been wargaming for over 40 years...I think your source on that is a bit "off"
As for Azyr comp,our group tried it and found it to be a nice mild point system,still need lots of balancing work though.Its a system we will keep up on but currently will be moving to the leaked Laws of War system for competitive testing
My friends and I are sticking to the Azyr compendium, written by the same developer of AoS, before GW told him to scrap points.
Ok, I registered just to ask you:
1. Is this the Azyr compendium that you're referring to?
2. How do you now that he has had some part in the design of AoS? Has he stated so or is there another source that claims it? (I'm relly in the dark about this and it's very interesting to me)
There isn't any proof for the document truly coming from a GW employee and there never will be, since as soon as who wrote it gets released, said person will be fired. As far as I can recall, the current iteration is community-developed anyway.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: You need to realise that the structure allowing for competition is there. Your maximum model allowance is based on deployment zone size, your attempt to out think your opponent's list happens as you put models on the table from your collection.
Tournaments would do well to simply limit the deployment zone size (say 3'x6") if they want a balanced game.
Wrong. Deployment size has nothing to do with balance as it barely has any relation to actual unit strength on the battlefield, the intention certain unit types are taken for etc.
Not wrong. If both players have the same space available, and a varied collection of models to choose from, then deployment will allow the unit to unit balance you are looking for. They place heavy cavalry, you place a block of spearmen. They place archers, you place light cavalry or a chariot team. They place a big monsters, you place a long range artillery unit. The counters are intuitive, if you follow the "rules" for most fantasy literature.
Also, the best infantry units are still able to be taken down by a similar footprint of weaker infantry, especialy when you field them in space saving blocks/ trays.
The entire premise would work (to a low degree) if units were balanced among each other. When several units of the same type are balanced differently, the system cannot hold up. Worse, what you described is about the worst pay-to-win system any tabletop developer...or model producing company, if talking GW, as it would require each participant to have a sizeable collection of miniatures with representatives of the best selection for each possible slot. If you don't, you'd have zero chance.
Last but not least - what happened to all the praise for the "freedom" AoS is supposed to offer according to its apologists, if, assuming your theory was true, you would be absolutely required to have an immense model collection?
Bonus points for PUGs where you'd have to either get lucky and have the right counter-parts ready or heave your entire model collection around.
Sigvatr wrote: The entire premise would work (to a low degree) if units were balanced among each other. When several units of the same type are balanced differently, the system cannot hold up. Worse, what you described is about the worst pay-to-win system any tabletop developer...or model producing company, if talking GW, as it would require each participant to have a sizeable collection of miniatures with representatives of the best selection for each possible slot. If you don't, you'd have zero chance.
Last but not least - what happened to all the praise for the "freedom" AoS is supposed to offer according to its apologists, if, assuming your theory was true, you would be absolutely required to have an immense model collection?
Bonus points for PUGs where you'd have to either get lucky and have the right counter-parts ready or heave your entire model collection around.
"Just buy all our models and you'll have a fair game!" - GW Seems legit.
Actually, no. I'm not buying it. If all infantry were the same power level or all units had similar abilities, then sure. That might have something. I I don't see how "eyeballing" it is better than a well thought out point system. (Not GW's points where no thought was put into them.)
@timetowaste85 - I think the 90% competitive thing is a bit off We all tend to think that our group is really important, I think -- in the way that I believe that a huge number of people who play 40k do so at home rather than at a store or games night, but have absolutely no way to prove it. And I could be totally wrong; it just makes sense to me, because I happen to like the game that way.
@MWHistorian - Well, it's more supposed to be: "Just buy whatever models you want, and figure out a fair game with the other guy who buys whatever models they want!"
Eyeballing it works if both people have very random, unplanned armies and didn't plan on competing. If two people want to compete in AoS, using RAW, the only way to do so is to agree prior to the game that the armies are fair.
You have to look at it like this, if skaven clan rats were the same power level all the time as the skaven storm vermin, you would never buy the storm vermin because they are $10 us more expensive.
Everyone used to compare the points to price ratio, this isn't any different. You'll also note that when the two reach the same price point, they are literally equal to one another in every way.
@MWHistorian - Well, it's more supposed to be: "Just buy whatever models you want, and figure out a fair game with the other guy who buys whatever models they want!"
Eyeballing it works if both people have very random, unplanned armies and didn't plan on competing. If two people want to compete in AoS, using RAW, the only way to do so is to agree prior to the game that the armies are fair.
So, as long as you don't care about lopsided games with predetermined winners it's alright?
No thanks.
And we're assuming we're having a lot of models to choose from instead of smaller well thought out armies. Again "Buy more stuff edition."
MongooseMatt wrote: Points-based games mean competition. They encourage it. When you put together a Fantasy Battle force (or 40k, just as guilty), you are trying to put together an army, you will have a tendency to avoid certain units because, for whatever reason, they are not going to work out for you. I am not talking about sub-optimal units (we all include those in our forces) but the ones that you think are just plain bad. You want to put together a decent army that has a reasonable chance of winning, so you want to pick units that will help you do that.
And then (and this is crucial) when you play and lose with such an army, there is a feeling of disappointment, perhaps even failure - the sides were perfectly (yeah, I know) matched and you lost. You got it wrong. You cocked it up.
I can't say I've ever experienced that.
I mean, sure, it's disappointing to lose... But in a game that is so heavily influenced by luck, it's hard to take it all that seriously.
Removing the points costs isn't going to change how much I want to win a game, or how heartbroken (or not) I'll be when I lose. The whole point of playing a game against other people is for one of you to win.
With no points-based gaming, that does not matter. You want a wing of Warhawk Riders because you think they look stunning? Bring them along, there really is no downside.
I don't follow this reasoning.
If you remove the points costs, what reason is there to ever take anything but the best units? Since there's no longer any premium applied to including them, if this unit is better than that unit, there is no reason at all to ever consider including that unit.
This, though:
Do Scenarios, Not Points
...I think, is ultimately the key.
GW's biggest failing with AoS was marketing. It was sprung on the community out of the blue, with no real warning or time to prepare for just how big a departure it was from WHFB. That was always going to result in a certain amount of backlash.
But then, when they did unveil it, they just kind of put it out there and said 'Here you go!' (Anyone remember how well that worked for Inquisitor?)
The strength of AoS is, as far as I can see, as a vessel for scenario games. So that's exactly how GW should have been billing it. Along with all of the revised rules that went online when the game was released, there should have been scenario packs to create launching points for campaigns for each army. Or at the very least, some sort of mention of those scenario packs that are coming down the pipe. At every opportunity, GW should have been mentioning scenario-based play, and showcasing their awesome studio campaigns, and running story events in stores...
Instead - here's a game! Your old stuff is now invalid! Buy new stuff!
The strength of AoS is, as far as I can see, as a vessel for scenario games. So that's exactly how GW should have been billing it. Along with all of the revised rules that went online when the game was released, there should have been scenario packs to create launching points for campaigns for each army. Or at the very least, some sort of mention of those scenario packs that are coming down the pipe. At every opportunity, GW should have been mentioning scenario-based play, and showcasing their awesome studio campaigns, and running story events in stores...
Why do people use scenarios as a strength of a game? ANY GAME CAN USE SCENARIOS. AoS does nothing special that makes it more able to use scenarios than any other game. Any game allows to determine sides by eye and creativity if your opponent wants to also.
These are not unique attributes to AoS. Why do people list them as positives?
I wasn't saying that AoS is special because it allows scenario play.
I was saying that if you're designing a game that only works properly with scenarios, you need to be really, really clear about that when you release it, and preferably make sure you actually release scenarios for people to play.
insaniak wrote: GW's biggest failing with AoS was marketing. It was sprung on the community out of the blue, with no real warning or time to prepare for just how big a departure it was from WHFB. That was always going to result in a certain amount of backlash.
But then, when they did unveil it, they just kind of put it out there and said 'Here you go!' (Anyone remember how well that worked for Inquisitor?)
The strength of AoS is, as far as I can see, as a vessel for scenario games. So that's exactly how GW should have been billing it. Along with all of the revised rules that went online when the game was released, there should have been scenario packs to create launching points for campaigns for each army. Or at the very least, some sort of mention of those scenario packs that are coming down the pipe. At every opportunity, GW should have been mentioning scenario-based play, and showcasing their awesome studio campaigns, and running story events in stores...
Instead - here's a game! Your old stuff is now invalid! Buy new stuff!
I wasn't saying that AoS is special because it allows scenario play.
I was saying that if you're designing a game that only works properly with scenarios, you need to be really, really clear about that when you release it, and preferably make sure you actually release scenarios for people to play.
Indeed. It also doesn't help that GW's idea of "scenario" play, traditionally, has been extremely loose, largely just being alternate styles of pickup missions, with little or no guidelines on what factions should be present, in what size, and what form & composition.
It really feels like GW is simply wanting to make relatively minimal rules covering largely just model interaction and setup, leaving everything up to the players, so they can then say "well you're playing it wrong" when people have poor experiences
insaniak wrote: If you remove the points costs, what reason is there to ever take anything but the best units? Since there's no longer any premium applied to including them, if this unit is better than that unit, there is no reason at all to ever consider including that unit.
1] You really like the models
2] The 'Rule of Cool'
3] They complement your better units.
4] You don't want to be an this time
I could go on.
I also think the 'This Time' is another big thing that has not been looked at. Some of us have huge armies [12,000+ Space Wolves the last time I looked, I know this are not an AOS army, but work with me].
If 40k worked like AoS I would now have the flexibility to bring what I want and not have to worry about trying to my my Wolf Scouts into a list, I could just throw them on the table, but after a few games I might get tired of them and replace them with some Skyclaws and not have to spend the time to rebuild my list and make sure the Points and Synergy work out.
Points also cause an issue from time to time with list.
Lets say you spent the last week putting together that 1,500 point list for the LFGS's regular game. You show up ready to go and find out you missed the announcement that it is now a 2,000 point game. Now you spend the next 20min+ reworking your list if you brought the right models to fill it out and it then will mess up with how you synergized your original list.
With AoS a change like that lets you just pull out another unit and there you go, because you brought with you the 'Models' you wanted to play.
That is another thing, you will not be bringing all of your Models with you every time. You will spend your time before you leave just packing what you want to play, not the ones you don't want to play. If Martel could never have to take another Tactical Squad again he never would.
AoS is not about who is the 'Best', it about about Playing what you 'Want' Good, Bad or y.
insaniak wrote: If you remove the points costs, what reason is there to ever take anything but the best units? Since there's no longer any premium applied to including them, if this unit is better than that unit, there is no reason at all to ever consider including that unit.
1] You really like the models
2] The 'Rule of Cool'
3] They complement your better units.
4] You don't want to be an this time
I could go on.
I also think the 'This Time' is another big thing that has not been looked at. Some of us have huge armies [12,000+ Space Wolves the last time I looked, I know this are not an AOS army, but work with me].
If 40k worked like AoS I would now have the flexibility to bring what I want and not have to worry about trying to my my Wolf Scouts into a list, I could just throw them on the table, but after a few games I might get tired of them and replace them with some Skyclaws and not have to spend the time to rebuild my list and make sure the Points and Synergy work out.
Points also cause an issue from time to time with list.
Lets say you spent the last week putting together that 1,500 point list for the LFGS's regular game. You show up ready to go and find out you missed the announcement that it is now a 2,000 point game. Now you spend the next 20min+ reworking your list if you brought the right models to fill it out and it then will mess up with how you synergized your original list.
With AoS a change like that lets you just pull out another unit and there you go, because you brought with you the 'Models' you wanted to play.
That is another thing, you will not be bringing all of your Models with you every time. You will spend your time before you leave just packing what you want to play, not the ones you don't want to play. If Martel could never have to take another Tactical Squad again he never would.
AoS is not about who is the 'Best', it about about Playing what you 'Want' Good, Bad or y.
What if one thinks the really strong models are the coolest? So, now he's a bleep because he likes different models than you?
Sounds fair.
Points would let him use his favorite models and be limited in doing so.
insaniak wrote: If you remove the points costs, what reason is there to ever take anything but the best units? Since there's no longer any premium applied to including them, if this unit is better than that unit, there is no reason at all to ever consider including that unit.
1] You really like the models
2] The 'Rule of Cool'
3] They complement your better units.
4] You don't want to be an this time
I could go on.
I also think the 'This Time' is another big thing that has not been looked at. Some of us have huge armies [12,000+ Space Wolves the last time I looked, I know this are not an AOS army, but work with me].
If 40k worked like AoS I would now have the flexibility to bring what I want and not have to worry about trying to my my Wolf Scouts into a list, I could just throw them on the table, but after a few games I might get tired of them and replace them with some Skyclaws and not have to spend the time to rebuild my list and make sure the Points and Synergy work out.
Points also cause an issue from time to time with list.
Lets say you spent the last week putting together that 1,500 point list for the LFGS's regular game. You show up ready to go and find out you missed the announcement that it is now a 2,000 point game. Now you spend the next 20min+ reworking your list if you brought the right models to fill it out and it then will mess up with how you synergized your original list.
With AoS a change like that lets you just pull out another unit and there you go, because you brought with you the 'Models' you wanted to play.
That is another thing, you will not be bringing all of your Models with you every time. You will spend your time before you leave just packing what you want to play, not the ones you don't want to play. If Martel could never have to take another Tactical Squad again he never would.
AoS is not about who is the 'Best', it about about Playing what you 'Want' Good, Bad or y.
What if one thinks the really strong models are the coolest? So, now he's a bleep because he likes different models than you? Sounds fair.
Points would let him use his favorite models and be limited in doing so.
No, mostly because some of the coolest are the best, but am I a Scrub for liking Orgyns and my Rough Minis?
insaniak wrote: If you remove the points costs, what reason is there to ever take anything but the best units? Since there's no longer any premium applied to including them, if this unit is better than that unit, there is no reason at all to ever consider including that unit.
1] You really like the models
2] The 'Rule of Cool'
3] They complement your better units.
4] You don't want to be an this time
I could go on.
I also think the 'This Time' is another big thing that has not been looked at. Some of us have huge armies [12,000+ Space Wolves the last time I looked, I know this are not an AOS army, but work with me].
If 40k worked like AoS I would now have the flexibility to bring what I want and not have to worry about trying to my my Wolf Scouts into a list, I could just throw them on the table, but after a few games I might get tired of them and replace them with some Skyclaws and not have to spend the time to rebuild my list and make sure the Points and Synergy work out.
Points also cause an issue from time to time with list.
Lets say you spent the last week putting together that 1,500 point list for the LFGS's regular game. You show up ready to go and find out you missed the announcement that it is now a 2,000 point game. Now you spend the next 20min+ reworking your list if you brought the right models to fill it out and it then will mess up with how you synergized your original list.
With AoS a change like that lets you just pull out another unit and there you go, because you brought with you the 'Models' you wanted to play.
That is another thing, you will not be bringing all of your Models with you every time. You will spend your time before you leave just packing what you want to play, not the ones you don't want to play. If Martel could never have to take another Tactical Squad again he never would.
AoS is not about who is the 'Best', it about about Playing what you 'Want' Good, Bad or y.
What if one thinks the really strong models are the coolest? So, now he's a bleep because he likes different models than you? Sounds fair.
Points would let him use his favorite models and be limited in doing so.
No, mostly because some of the coolest are the best, but am I a Scrub for liking Orgyns and my Rough Minis?
insaniak wrote: If you remove the points costs, what reason is there to ever take anything but the best units? Since there's no longer any premium applied to including them, if this unit is better than that unit, there is no reason at all to ever consider including that unit.
1] You really like the models
2] The 'Rule of Cool'
3] They complement your better units.
4] You don't want to be an this time
I could go on.
I also think the 'This Time' is another big thing that has not been looked at. Some of us have huge armies [12,000+ Space Wolves the last time I looked, I know this are not an AOS army, but work with me].
If 40k worked like AoS I would now have the flexibility to bring what I want and not have to worry about trying to my my Wolf Scouts into a list, I could just throw them on the table, but after a few games I might get tired of them and replace them with some Skyclaws and not have to spend the time to rebuild my list and make sure the Points and Synergy work out.
Points also cause an issue from time to time with list.
Lets say you spent the last week putting together that 1,500 point list for the LFGS's regular game. You show up ready to go and find out you missed the announcement that it is now a 2,000 point game. Now you spend the next 20min+ reworking your list if you brought the right models to fill it out and it then will mess up with how you synergized your original list.
With AoS a change like that lets you just pull out another unit and there you go, because you brought with you the 'Models' you wanted to play.
That is another thing, you will not be bringing all of your Models with you every time. You will spend your time before you leave just packing what you want to play, not the ones you don't want to play. If Martel could never have to take another Tactical Squad again he never would.
AoS is not about who is the 'Best', it about about Playing what you 'Want' Good, Bad or y.
What if one thinks the really strong models are the coolest? So, now he's a bleep because he likes different models than you? Sounds fair.
Points would let him use his favorite models and be limited in doing so.
No, mostly because some of the coolest are the best, but am I a Scrub for liking Orgyns and my Rough Minis?
I don't understand what you just said.
Ok lets try this.
If you think Unit A is the coolest looking and like to play them and they also happen to be the most powerful I am cool with that.
If I think a different Unit it the coolest, but it is one of the worst unit in the game would you be cool with it.
I know a lot out there that would call me a "Scrub" or other things because I normally in 40k do not take the most powerful/Efficient Units.
OP, glad you're having fun. The game isn't to my taste but YFMV (your fun may vary). I've gotten over my initial violent reaction and now am pleasantly apathetic about the whole thing. I'll eventually use my piles upon piles of ogres and vampire counts in some other system as soon as I can find people around here that play one.
insaniak wrote: If you remove the points costs, what reason is there to ever take anything but the best units? Since there's no longer any premium applied to including them, if this unit is better than that unit, there is no reason at all to ever consider including that unit.
1] You really like the models
2] The 'Rule of Cool'
3] They complement your better units.
4] You don't want to be an this time.
All of those would apply to a system with points costs as well.
The specific point I was responding to, though, was the idea that by removing points costs you remove any reason to not use those weaker units. And that doesn't make any sense... removing points costs makes it a worse idea to include those weaker units, since they're now direct competition for the strong units, rather than being balanced out (however badly) by their cost.
insaniak wrote: If you remove the points costs, what reason is there to ever take anything but the best units? Since there's no longer any premium applied to including them, if this unit is better than that unit, there is no reason at all to ever consider including that unit.
1] You really like the models
2] The 'Rule of Cool'
3] They complement your better units.
4] You don't want to be an this time.
All of those would apply to a system with points costs as well.
The specific point I was responding to, though, was the idea that by removing points costs you remove any reason to not use those weaker units. And that doesn't make any sense... removing points costs makes it a worse idea to include those weaker units, since they're now direct competition for the strong units, rather than being balanced out (however badly) by their cost.
Yes, but from what I have seen most of the same type of units are balanced with each other.
Example:Clan Rats vs. Slave Rats The Clan Rats are a much better unit at first glance and everyone ask why take the Slaves.
Because the Slave rats perform a different role on the field. They can fight, but they also have slings making them a double threat. Maybe not as strong at the Clan Rats, but they give you two different ways to fight. That same can be said for the Stormvermin vs Slave Rats.
@MWHistorian - Well, it's more supposed to be: "Just buy whatever models you want, and figure out a fair game with the other guy who buys whatever models they want!"
Eyeballing it works if both people have very random, unplanned armies and didn't plan on competing. If two people want to compete in AoS, using RAW, the only way to do so is to agree prior to the game that the armies are fair.
So, as long as you don't care about lopsided games with predetermined winners it's alright? No thanks. And we're assuming we're having a lot of models to choose from instead of smaller well thought out armies. Again "Buy more stuff edition."
I don't think you're understanding my premise correctly.
Scenario 1: two casual players who just randomly buy whatever models they like based on the look of the model, without ever having read the warscroll. You're actually looking at the people in my wife's group. They buy the model, build and paint it, and 5 minutes before playing it read the warscroll for the first time. So, when they each eyeball each others' armies, yeah, they generally are pretty balanced. None of the armies are really optimized in any way for synergy. When there's a disparity, it happens once, they correct it, and it never happens again. Joy and teddy bears.
Scenario 2: two competitive players who want to play must look at each others battle forces, and compromise on a common denominator of equivalence. It assumes that the two players WANT a fair game, and breaks down if the two players do not want a fair game (the game will never start, or one player must allow a lopsided battle).
Since Scenario 2 really sucks unless you have 2 players who want a fair game, the game does not attract people who DON'T want a fair game (abuse generosity/trust, and you'll be unlikely to get many more games). Which was partly what the OP was saying.
Basically, the game is looking for players, both of which would rather err on the side of caution and play the inferior army; or at a minimum are not looking to field an army superior to their opponent. In this case, the game will run very smoothly in terms of fairness, because at worst, you just adjust it for the next game.
Keep in mind that SKILL is often a comp in such designs too. When we play 40k, a couple of our players are significantly less aggressive / skilled and generally field armies that are pretty suboptimal -- after, like, 15 years of sticking with us (boy they are awesome paintjobs, though, I tell you). We would like to have the to still have fun too and win games, too, so generally, there's a "skill comp" and we simply allow them more models. It's not unlike making the computer game fun by giving the computer twice as many units as you with twice as much HP so that you don't just slaughter the AI every game.
The way we comp it is to simply state (accurately) that their 40k army is kind of sucky, through no fault of theirs, but GW's point system and rules. So some take more stuff, please. It also helps make up for some of the silly things they tend to do every game
While I can't say I agree with the direction GW is taking with either of its games right now I can commend the original poster for a well written post. I have to agree that I may have been blinded by the awesome stupidity of GW at first, but this post brings up some good points.
1: We can play whatever game we want. And yes, toy soldiers. We definitely can't bellow too loud about games aimed at kids when we are imagining names for our toys.
2: AoS is still new. GW could possibly not screw this up and AoS could turn out to be the breath of fresh air the design studio needs. I know I was somewhat underwhelmed by the ET releases, though this current raft of repackaged units is kind of scaring me.
3: There is the potential for a ruleset that doesn't require updates periodically as new units or armies push the boundaries of the rules. Power creep could be a thing of the past, but as we see with WMH this problem can also be solved by turning all the dials to 11...
I still maintain the clanrats/stormvermin - type issues will disappear over time.
Reason being the Stormcasts are (I believe) the model for future armies.
Yes, there are things in that army that are objectively good/better than other things in isolation, but that all falls to bits with your opponent's choices.
Have they but down huge blocks 'chaff' infantry? Then you want Decimators out the wazoo.
Warmachines? Protectors and Prosecutors.
Elite or multi-wound infantry? Retributors.
Beasties? Liberators and protectors.
As the opposition, you want to be trying to reverse those matchups.
The legacy armies will continue to have these 'issues' because the units were created under a system where picking 50 skavenslaves over 20 storm vermin wasn't straightforward.
I'm not saying that's forgiveable, but on the evidence so far it will become less of an issue over time as more AoS designed forces come forward.
Attritionally, no. But larger units have certain vulnerabilities that can be exploited due to the footprint of the unit.
Beyond the total wound count, the main factor in a unit's efficiency is number of models it can bring to bear. A larger unit is very easy for your opponent to dictate how it piles in and results in melee bottlenecks. Throw in a few effects and a big unit can become more of a hindrance than a help.
A large unit such as 50 clan rats can be more of a hinderance because it gets in the way of your other units, and makes it hard to position your army effectively.
It also pushes you closer to unlocking sudden death to your opponent.
Not saying it is perfect, but those ARE the balancing mechanisms for large vs small units in AoS.
If someone takes a bunch of units of their armies best infantry because they like the models, that's cool. If they do the same because they are the best infantry, also cool. Basic infantry are slow enough to be killed by ranged chariots, archers, and artillery without much they can do about it. Even the best of one unit type is countered by larger numbers of an inferior version of the same unit type, and other unit types that are designed to counter them anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, you are limited in army size based on deployment zone size. So if you can't fit 50 clan rats in your dz, you can't have them.
Yes, but from what I have seen most of the same type of units are balanced with each other.
Example:Clan Rats vs. Slave Rats.
What about, say, 10 Clan Rats vs 50 Clan Rats?
Still balanced?
That was sort of not my point, but...
If I saw 50 Model Clan Rat Unit put on the table I would know what to expect and put down a Large unit I think would counter it.
If it was a 10 Model Clan Rat Unit on the table I would put down a Small Unit I think would counter it.
If I put down my 10 Model Unit of Slave Rats and my opponent pulled out a 50 Model Unit of Cavalry to counter it I probably would still play the game with that guy once...ONCE!
That is sort of the point I keep trying to make and others to that a lot seem to be missing. While the Game lets you play what ever you want (On of the best things I think the game has done) it come down to 'Just because you Can, does not mean you Should.
Ok so we can see in the OP that the game is not lacking in the tactics department, and really drives the whole unit synergy thing.
But if that's the case why play this over warmahordes? The first thing I thought when I saw the poxy sigmarines is "Oh god, GW has tried to copy warmahordes, badly."
Zaku212 wrote: Ok so we can see in the OP that the game is not lacking in the tactics department, and really drives the whole unit synergy thing.
But if that's the case why play this over warmahordes? The first thing I thought when I saw the poxy sigmarines is "Oh god, GW has tried to copy warmahordes, badly."
In my experience, WMH is really harsh. That's not a criticism, the few games I've played have been fun, but if your opponent really knows what they're doing then you're just going through the motions.
It's intended to be brutal and unforgiving and - most importantly - directly competitive.
AoS is not even slightly intended to be played competitively.
Both games should be fun, but that's your choice. TFG should play WMH, because he will generally learn very quickly that being TFG isn't so hot and might get some manners beaten into him.
On Balance: Why is that so important in a wargame? even a competitive one. Even fictional battles are rarely balanced, let alone real life one's. If this game is a simulation of war to you, why have a points-system to make armies "Equal"? Something that only ever happens in (most) games.
AoS has the Sudden Death Mechanism to give an underdog player a fighting chance. In addition there are no real invulnerabilities anymore.
Player skill in earlier editions was for a large part in Army composition, now player skill will actually be in the actual meat of the game: the miniature battle. The player at a disadvantage has a greater challenge to win the game, and it will show skill at this game to win against the odds. Is that bad? and as said before, it is not like this would, could or should happen everytime. Maybe after such a battle people can agree on something to balance the sides if that's what they'd want or like for the next game.
Tournaments? Tournaments always had additional balancing mechanisms and army limitations (even banning units and certain magic items or magic lores) and I doubt that will change. I have yet to hear of a tournament that is/was completely RAW without limits
Herohammernostalgia wrote: On Balance: Why is that so important in a wargame? even a competitive one. Even fictional battles are rarely balanced, let alone real life one's. If this game is a simulation of war to you, why have a points-system to make armies "Equal"? Something that only ever happens in (most) games.
AoS has the Sudden Death Mechanism to give an underdog player a fighting chance. In addition there are no real invulnerabilities anymore.
Player skill in earlier editions was for a large part in Army composition, now player skill will actually be in the actual meat of the game: the miniature battle. The player at a disadvantage has a greater challenge to win the game, and it will show skill at this game to win against the odds. Is that bad? and as said before, it is not like this would, could or should happen everytime. Maybe after such a battle people can agree on something to balance the sides if that's what they'd want or like for the next game.
Tournaments? Tournaments always had additional balancing mechanisms and army limitations (even banning units and certain magic items or magic lores) and I doubt that will change. I have yet to hear of a tournament that is/was completely RAW without limits
That depends on how the game is going to be played.
If you're talking about a game that is designed primarily for scenario play, or that is only going to be played at home or amongst an established group of gamers who know each other and are happy to cooperate to create a social game, then balance is not necessarily particularly important.
Where it is important, is when the people playing the game don't know each other. That's been the key to the growth of WHFB and 40K over the last few decades - the fact that you could build an army and walk into a gaming club or store just about anywhere and expect a game with minimal setup required. You have an army, someone else has an army - you play.
For that to work, you need some semblance of balance, so that people can be more confident of getting an enjoyable and reasonably fair game.
So this really just comes back to how this game is intended to be played. AoS is clearly intended more for the former type of play than the pickup game. And that's fine... it's just not going to be appealing to those who don't play with friends or an established group. People latch onto the idea that tournaments have their own balancing mechanics... forgetting that tournament players are only one part of the 'playing with strangers' crowd, and not even the larger part. There are an awful lot of people out there playing against complete strangers, who have never entered a tournament.
Herohammernostalgia wrote: On Balance: Why is that so important in a wargame? even a competitive one. Even fictional battles are rarely balanced, let alone real life one's. If this game is a simulation of war to you, why have a points-system to make armies "Equal"? Something that only ever happens in (most) games.
A competitive game should be balanced because it then becomes a test of skill rather than looking at a board and knowing who's going to win. A points systems potentially allows two or more opponents to come to a game, put down their armies, and play. If a points systems doesn't allow that, then it's the fault of the designer.
Games that have imbalanced scenarios will often give both players different objectives so that the player with the weaker force will still have a chance to win the scenario. Some games even use points to differentiate Attackers (with more points) and Defenders (with less points, but a natural advantage). AoS does not have this, unless you want to pay $75 for some weak scenarios.
AoS has the Sudden Death Mechanism to give an underdog player a fighting chance. In addition there are no real invulnerabilities anymore.
Sudden death gives bonuses to whichever player has less miniatures on the table. A player with a smaller, elite force should isn't exactly an 'underdog player.'
Player skill in earlier editions was for a large part in Army composition, now player skill will actually be in the actual meat of the game: the miniature battle. The player at a disadvantage has a greater challenge to win the game, and it will show skill at this game to win against the odds. Is that bad? and as said before, it is not like this would, could or should happen everytime. Maybe after such a battle people can agree on something to balance the sides if that's what they'd want or like for the next game.
Player skill is still in army composition - but now that skill happens to be "do you own enough?" And if the player with the disadvantage has a greater challenge to win the game, does the other player have a lesser challenge? Doesn't that lessen the worth of the game for him? And if he wins, does the player that lost get to say, Yeah, but you were going to win anyway? And why should I have to play a game potentially multiple times before I and my opponent can work out a fair, fun game?
Tournaments? Tournaments always had additional balancing mechanisms and army limitations (even banning units and certain magic items or magic lores) and I doubt that will change. I have yet to hear of a tournament that is/was completely RAW without limits
I went to a SAGA tournament in June. No units banned, no restrictions. Bring a 6 point Warband of your choice from the 3 Dark Ages book or the Crusades book. So it's not that tournaments have always had these things, you've just never bothered to look for them.
On balance, just my two cents and not to defend either party but... Mordheim is terribly unbalanced but somehow we manage to not buy 20 Clanrats with slings.
More to the point, Warhammer the Game of Fantasy Battles is also terribly unbalanced, somehow we forget that it's up to the player to engage in fair play. Just because imbalances exist doesn't mean we need to actively pursue them for the sake of winning. All this mumbo jumbo about talking with your opponent, seems to me like that's a requirement of any game that involves more than one player. I don't see how Warhammer draws criticism for this, but in AoS its praised. Honestly I have never played a game that didn't involve some sort of dialogue between the players beforehand.
At the end of the day however, GW is going to do whatever they like and its up to us to decide whether or not to play along. Keep in mind though, the onus isn't on the player to provide a quality game. That's up to GW. AoS isn't the bad guy here. This game could actually turn out okay, but we have to hope that GW doesn't make a botch of it. So instead of us tearing each others throats out, how about we agree to disagree and lets see what GW does.
@infinite_array - the philosophical question that I pose is: In a competitive game that is a test of skill, should that test begin before or after the coin toss?
I would argue that a game of skill requires two, fairly matched battle forces; and that of asymmetry exists in the armies (in terms of strength) then it is not a good test of skill.
In my imagining, in a true test of player skill, neither player gets to choose their army: They are prebalanced, exhaustively tested, and nobody has an advantage based on list. It's the best PLAYER, not the best ARMY.
In my opinion, any time you get to attempt to build synergy or efficiency into an army list, you open the possibility for an unfair fight. So the real question is, should building an effective list a part of the game?
In almost every war game, the answer is YES. In AoS, the answer is, only if you want it to be -- because if you build an ineffective army, the game relies on your opponent to make their army equally ineffective before you start.
First off, I agree in some cases. If we're working on the idea that we're two opponents who have never met each other, but are comparable in gameplay skill and knowledge of a game, we should be able to meet, put down our forces, and play a game.
I think that your example of a "true test" does fall a little short, however - a good wargame will allow players to use different playstyles to win a game, depending on what they feel they can do best. If both of the armies in your example are based on moving forward and hitting each other, then the player who favors a movement based game will lose. If both armies favor movement over hitting power, then the player who is better at hitting will be disadvantaged. If the armies are of equal proportions, and each players favors a different approach, then the question comes down not to skill, but which method of play the rules favor.
And, of course, there is always the problem of dice - if, like in GW's games, a large part of the game comes down to rolling dice, the world's best player can always roll more 1's than the world's worst player.
@darkcloak - not that the is the norm, but there are some people who I've met that would rather minimize the social part of it, and are looking for a tabletop version of a computer game. I don't really understand this mentality (because I think a computer game with matchmaking is just better in this respect), but I guess to each their own.
@infinite array - right, in a perfect world we'd be able to pick two forces and blindly charge into battle for a fair fight. I thin that would be a wonderful thing, but most war games have bad matchups to some degree that makes that at least not quite so. I think we accept that chance is a factor when we play these games, and play on the averages, which to me is ok.
The bigger issue though, is that if I'm a person who wants to play an army based on ogres and giants seeming cool together, and you're a person who assembles their army based on synergy of high elves and sigmarites, how do we get a fair fight? Let's say that my army had no range and no magic, because that's the nature of those units, and while those types of units exist, I choose not to avail myself of them because the models don't thematically for the army.
Although this is pretty hypothetical, in 40k, we do it all the time (for instance, one side has ZERO range). It might even take 2-3 games to get it tuned right, and maybe we have to jigger the terrain a bt too. All I'm saying is.. Getting to that fair fight can be a lotta work! LOL. (still, the points ARE useful as a starting point; they're just nor useful as an ending point).
Herohammernostalgia wrote: On Balance: Why is that so important in a wargame? even a competitive one. Even fictional battles are rarely balanced, let alone real life one's. If this game is a simulation of war to you, why have a points-system to make armies "Equal"? Something that only ever happens in (most) games.
AoS has the Sudden Death Mechanism to give an underdog player a fighting chance. In addition there are no real invulnerabilities anymore.
Player skill in earlier editions was for a large part in Army composition, now player skill will actually be in the actual meat of the game: the miniature battle. The player at a disadvantage has a greater challenge to win the game, and it will show skill at this game to win against the odds. Is that bad? and as said before, it is not like this would, could or should happen everytime. Maybe after such a battle people can agree on something to balance the sides if that's what they'd want or like for the next game.
Tournaments? Tournaments always had additional balancing mechanisms and army limitations (even banning units and certain magic items or magic lores) and I doubt that will change. I have yet to hear of a tournament that is/was completely RAW without limits
You know what else war is? Not fun.
A game is supposed to be fun. When the winner is obvious from the beginning its no longer fun.
Thats why people advocate balance and fairness.
@Talys
not saying your idea of a "true test of skill" is wrong cause it isn't but that to me isn't the only way to test ones skill a lopsided match can just as well test ones skill even if you end up you can sit there and be proud that you nearly turned it around.
as aos is concerned I'm optimistic about it points or no points be damned i play to have fun.
also those couple posts about the lore being destroyed, no its not destroyed in fact all the old lore is still there and still valid even plays a major part in the realms current predicament (sigmars alliance falling apart)
Herohammernostalgia wrote: On Balance: Why is that so important in a wargame? even a competitive one. Even fictional battles are rarely balanced, let alone real life one's. If this game is a simulation of war to you, why have a points-system to make armies "Equal"? Something that only ever happens in (most) games.
It's a War game, not war. We are not doing a real war, nor a simulation of it.
And why have 'equal' armies? For the same reason boxing has weight categories.to allow for a level playing field.
Back when i started playing wargames (25 years ago) most players were 18+
And my favourite games still are games like Epic (Armageddon) and Blood Bowl. Games that even most adult players cannot get good at.
For me AoS is too far from that type of game and i have more than enough other games to play.
I do have quite some WHFB armies and i will just wait and see what i can play with those armies. Maybe WHFB 8th edition, maybe a future version of AoS, maybe something else.
I do think AoS is a smart move and executed quite well bij GW. And i love the models.
And i have more models from games i never played, so i even agree to GWs statement "we make models, not games".
Herohammernostalgia wrote: On Balance: Why is that so important in a wargame? even a competitive one. Even fictional battles are rarely balanced, let alone real life one's. If this game is a simulation of war to you, why have a points-system to make armies "Equal"? Something that only ever happens in (most) games.
It's a War game, not war. We are not doing a real war, nor a simulation of it.
And why have 'equal' armies? For the same reason boxing has weight categories.to allow for a level playing field.
Weight categories only give a range so theres no definite equality, only approximate.
AoS suggests (but doesn't codify) the same thing. i.e. the players make the judgement on what is approximately equal if that is desired.
Most AoS gamers seem to be capable of this, with or without the use of warscrolls as a rough ready reckoner.
Weight categories only give a range so theres no definite equality, only approximate.
AoS suggests (but doesn't codify) the same thing. i.e. the players make the judgement on what is approximately equal if that is desired.
Most AoS gamers seem to be capable of this, with or without the use of warscrolls as a rough ready reckoner.
Joe and Sam, strangers that come across each other make a time to meet the following day to play The Wargame. They meet at the local store the next day and both unpack their armies of predetermined sizes. As they lay them out, Joe silently notes that, by chance, the configuration of his army is pretty optimal against the configuration of Sam's army. Sam eyes Joe's army, and silently concludes that, the configuration of his army is probably a poor match for Joe's -- not an impossible fight, but a very difficult and likely frustrating one.
So at this point, what do Joe and Sam do?
A) Neither says anything, deploy, and play the game B) Joe says something and offers to remove some units C) Sam says something and asks for Joe to remove some units
We have all seen and participated in this ritual before, and more likely than not been in both shoes. A is by far the most common. B is really rare, for a few reasons. First of all, Joe wants to win! An advantage is good. Second, maybe Sam is really good, or has some mean trick that Joe doesn't know about; or at least, this is a rationale for shutting up. Third, it was up to Sam to bring a good army anyhow. C almost never happens, because that just sounds like whining.
And that's assuming that Joe is interested in a fair fight. There's a good chunk of war gamers out there that would gleefully drool in anticipation of an easy win. I've met lots.
The social experiment that is AoS pairs Joe and Sam together. Joe and Sam then a) figure out what kind scenario they're going to play b) look at the models that both have available to them, and c) figure out what models they *should* play in order to make the game fun and fair.
Philosophically, it sounds like a wonderful. Practically, it's excludes a segment of gamers who wants to be rewarded at least a little bit by getting a leg up by building a clever army, and excludes completely the segment of gamers who want to REALLY want an advantage by bringing a clever army. I think those two groups are pretty big, and if I'm honest, for the majority of my gaming life, I was probably in the, "Screw fair! I want to build an advantageous list!" category. It's probably only been about half my gaming career (since 1988) that I've become ambivalent to "the win", and probably entirely because I've found a great group that is much more satisfying to play with than just beat the snot out of.
A few factors have played in my shift -- a much greater focus (by both me and my friends) on awesomely painted models and really cool armies defocuses to some extent the spotlight on superoptimal armies. Also, MtG with totally non-competitive players really helped shine a light on how fun a game can be as a social event, rather than a competitive one. Competitive computer games have gotten a lot better, to scratch that itch. And finally, I think I've just chilled some as I got older. I don't really have anything to prove to anyone (especially myself), and a "win" just doesn't mean as much anymore.
Still, I RELISH building super duper armies that exploit rules to the maximum, even if I never play them. It's just fun theoryhammering them up. Maybe playing it against myself for kicks... like, that new 1+ FNP Iron Hands trick, for instance, made me salivate in a Pavlovian way.
That's a er really interesting story you have there chap.
But the important bit is in the first sentence where Jim and Billybob met and arranged things.
If you chaps in the North or Amurika are just blundering around on the off chance that Cleetus from the next county might have arrived with same idea as you then of course you are going to have troubles. Talking to one another before hand helps in so many things.
I don't think it's a case of removing units - it's a case of one or both spotting that the match up might be extremely one-sided - whether by volume or synergy - and discussing whether further deployment occurs.
My area used the Clash of Sword UK tournament comp, and we're having a blast. The same people who usually do very well in WHM/40k/infinity still continue to do well. However, the difference now, is that those who often take tabletop hobby casually or just simply aren't good at any of them actually enjoy playing. A lot of the non-competitive players are happily playing alongside the competitive guys.
That difference actually makes the game really enjoyable. I would say AoS is like Hearthstone is to MTG. I would keep whatever "competitive" tabletop game I'm already playing AND AoS.
Among friends we usually might play it anyway, but the next time we both see to it that one army gets better or the other worse.
Something i also thought of by this example is the aspect of nice miniatures.
In tournaments, i often face players with an army that is build to win and in many cases:
- not their army and/or not painted by themselves; paintjob is exactly so to get the maximum op painting points
- an unpainted army; because painting points are all or nothing anyway
Especially the unpainted armies bother me a bit. Because you don't need a painted army to win "best general".
And IMO the best general would be someone who scores best in a tournament where everyone plays 2 battles against every opponent: playing their own army and playing the other.
But i have never seen that tournament set-up.
Weight categories only give a range so theres no definite equality, only approximate.
AoS suggests (but doesn't codify) the same thing. i.e. the players make the judgement on what is approximately equal if that is desired.
Most AoS gamers seem to be capable of this, with or without the use of warscrolls as a rough ready reckoner.
I wasn't talking about aos, but ok. I was talking about the appeal of 'equal', or 'balanced' armies. Specifically in relation to the question of why it is important.
You eyeball it in aos, and some historicals, you use a sideboard and multi list format in wmh. other games have their own systems. Ultimately it's important that the players can approach from a level and 'fair' playing field.
Joe and Sam, strangers that come across each other make a time to meet the following day to play The Wargame. They meet at the local store the next day and both unpack their armies of predetermined sizes. As they lay them out, Joe silently notes that, by chance, the configuration of his army is pretty optimal against the configuration of Sam's army. Sam eyes Joe's army, and silently concludes that, the configuration of his army is probably a poor match for Joe's -- not an impossible fight, but a very difficult and likely frustrating one.
So at this point, what do Joe and Sam do?
A) Neither says anything, deploy, and play the game
B) Joe says something and offers to remove some units
C) Sam says something and asks for Joe to remove some units
D) walk away from these terribly balanced games. Have a beer. Discuss possible alternatives.
None of those suggestions are wrong. They all work fine. But You're still assuming they got to the scenario in the first place. This does not have to be though. Other games have other solutions. Malifaux lets you create your list after rolling for mission. Wmh has two or three list formats. Infinity is just brilliantly balanced.
Joe and Sam, strangers that come across each other make a time to meet the following day to play The Wargame. They meet at the local store the next day and both unpack their armies of predetermined sizes. As they lay them out, Joe silently notes that, by chance, the configuration of his army is pretty optimal against the configuration of Sam's army. Sam eyes Joe's army, and silently concludes that, the configuration of his army is probably a poor match for Joe's -- not an impossible fight, but a very difficult and likely frustrating one.
So at this point, what do Joe and Sam do?
A) Neither says anything, deploy, and play the game
B) Joe says something and offers to remove some units
C) Sam says something and asks for Joe to remove some units
D) walk away from these terribly balanced games. Have a beer. Discuss possible alternatives.
None of those suggestions are wrong. They all work fine. But You're still assuming they got to the scenario in the first place. This does not have to be though. Other games have other solutions. Malifaux lets you create your list after rolling for mission. Wmh has two or three list formats. Infinity is just brilliantly balanced.
Amen to that, and I'll add that I've never had to negotiate anything in WMH, Infinity or Malifaux. We just say points and scenario. Done.
And Talys, most people don't make lists to "get a leg over the other guy" but to "bring your best because you know the other guy is." He's bringing his best. (I like you Talys, but you have some very odd notions of gaming.) You're bringing your best. No worries about "Oh, is going to bring a scrub army?" Play a balanced game and the threat of scrub armies (intentional or not) dramatically decreases.
@MWHistorian - It's just not true that you can build a semi-reasonable 50 point list in WMH and have it as good the most popular 50 point lists. I mean, just go to the PP forums, and people complain about this all the time.
The issue with practically every game, even a well-balanced one, you cannot just buy an army based on "I like this model, and these look like they'd look cool together" without having read the rules for it first (and expect to win). You can't look at Infinity and go, "Hey, those service robots with humans on them look awesome. I want my whole army to be made up of them!"
The experiment of AoS is that you *don't* have to bring your best because you know the other guy is. You can bring *anything* -- you can bring *the worst list in the world* and still expect a fair game, because the game is built on the premise that the other guy will adjust his list to be equally ineffective as yours.
Likewise, the experiment of AoS is that you aren't even *trying* to bring your best. You're trying -- wanting -- to play the lowest common denominator (based on models available) between you and your opponent's army in effectiveness in the specific scenario that you are playing. It's a totally different mindset.
Talys wrote: @MWHistorian - It's just not true that you can build a semi-reasonable 50 point list in WMH and have it as good the most popular 50 point lists. I mean, just go to the PP forums, and people complain about this all the time.
The issue with practically every game, even a well-balanced one, you cannot just buy an army based on "I like this model, and these look like they'd look cool together" without having read the rules for it first (and expect to win). You can't look at Infinity and go, "Hey, those service robots with humans on them look awesome. I want my whole army to be made up of them!"
The experiment of AoS is that you *don't* have to bring your best because you know the other guy is. You can bring *anything* -- you can bring *the worst list in the world* and still expect a fair game, because the game is built on the premise that the other guy will adjust his list to be equally ineffective as yours.
You're arguing against things I've never said.
I like putting thought into my lists. But that has nothing to do with pre-negotiation at the table.
MWHistorian wrote: And Talys, most people don't make lists to "get a leg over the other guy" but to "bring your best because you know the other guy is." He's bringing his best. (I like you Talys, but you have some very odd notions of gaming.) You're bringing your best. No worries about "Oh, is going to bring a scrub army?" Play a balanced game and the threat of scrub armies (intentional or not) dramatically decreases.
I'm simply replying that in AoS, the stressor of bringing your best is entirely removed (words of the OP). You don't bring your best. You bring whatever you want, with the expectation that you will play with the lowest common denominator between you and your opponent. Whomever has the stronger army will reduce its effectiveness.
This is certainly not for everyone (as I said, it excludes a big chunk of the gaming population, I think, and to a degree, me). But I think it appeals to a good chunk of folks, too.
I like putting thought into my lists. But that has nothing to do with pre-negotiation at the table.
That's exactly my point. In AoS, you don't NEED to put thought into your lists if you don't want to. If you want to base your army on how awesome it would be in performance, that's good. If you want to base your army on how cool it looks that's good too. If you want to base your army on a love of archers to the exclusion of every other unit, you can still play a game without getting stomped, because the other guy *wants* to play a fair game with you and will figure out what he needs to adjust in his army to make that happen.
What AoS will do, though, is irritate a lot of people who want to bring their best, and expect the other people to bring their best. Because one person will bring their best, and have to remove half of his army, and never get to play the synergy that he wanted to, since that would insta-win the game. In fact, since he's likely to encounter all sorts of people who DON'T bring their best, he's likely never to want to play the game at all. Unless, of course, he has a group of like-minded people who ALSO want to bring their best armies. Hence, I call it an "experiment"...
MWHistorian wrote: And Talys, most people don't make lists to "get a leg over the other guy" but to "bring your best because you know the other guy is." He's bringing his best. (I like you Talys, but you have some very odd notions of gaming.) You're bringing your best. No worries about "Oh, is going to bring a scrub army?" Play a balanced game and the threat of scrub armies (intentional or not) dramatically decreases.
I'm simply replying that in AoS, the stressor of bringing your best is entirely removed (words of the OP). You don't bring your best. You bring whatever you want, with the expectation that you will play with the lowest common denominator between you and your opponent. Whomever has the stronger army will reduce its effectiveness.
This is certainly not for everyone (as I said, it excludes a big chunk of the gaming population, I think, and to a degree, me). But I think it appeals to a good chunk of folks, too.
How is bringing the lowest common denominator better than bringing the highest common denominator? I don't see the point of arbitrary "play like scrubs is better!"
I like games where I can bring what I want, but I still have to put thought into my army instead of just plop down models at random.
I love the Freebooter model from PP, but its rules kind of suck. However, given the right style of army and support, the thing can pull off some crazy good shenanigans.
I can bring what I want, but it still requires thought and effort.
As for games, I bring my best. They bring their best and let player skill determine the rest.
How is bringing the lowest common denominator better than bringing the highest common denominator? I don't see the point of arbitrary "play like scrubs is better!" I like games where I can bring what I want, but I still have to put thought into my army instead of just plop down models at random. I love the Freebooter model from PP, but its rules kind of suck. However, given the right style of army and support, the thing can pull off some crazy good shenanigans. I can bring what I want, but it still requires thought and effort. As for games, I bring my best. They bring their best and let player skill determine the rest.
@MWHistorian - this is exactly why I said that the game is not for players like you (or me).
I generally want to bring my best too (though not always, often I like to play strange scenarios). Some people do not wish to put thought and effort into building their army, and instead, want to build their army based on the attractiveness of models or what they *think* should function as an army, to the exclusion of the rules. My wife is one of these people... if model A is nicer looking than model B, but A and B work well together, her preference is simply to take model A and not to take model B, rather than have a better functioning army. She also wants to put ZERO thought into "will this work well together", beyond her preconceived notions of what a fantasy army should look like, which is generally why she hates wargames, and likes Magic with like minded friends where the success of the game is determined by who has cards with the coolest artwork and how many hours they can stretch one game into.
MWHistorian wrote: And Talys, most people don't make lists to "get a leg over the other guy" but to "bring your best because you know the other guy is." He's bringing his best. (I like you Talys, but you have some very odd notions of gaming.) You're bringing your best. No worries about "Oh, is going to bring a scrub army?" Play a balanced game and the threat of scrub armies (intentional or not) dramatically decreases.
I'm simply replying that in AoS, the stressor of bringing your best is entirely removed (words of the OP). You don't bring your best. You bring whatever you want, with the expectation that you will play with the lowest common denominator between you and your opponent. Whomever has the stronger army will reduce its effectiveness.
This is certainly not for everyone (as I said, it excludes a big chunk of the gaming population, I think, and to a degree, me). But I think it appeals to a good chunk of folks, too.
How is bringing the lowest common denominator better than bringing the highest common denominator? I don't see the point of arbitrary "play like scrubs is better!"
I like games where I can bring what I want, but I still have to put thought into my army instead of just plop down models at random.
I love the Freebooter model from PP, but its rules kind of suck. However, given the right style of army and support, the thing can pull off some crazy good shenanigans.
I can bring what I want, but it still requires thought and effort.
As for games, I bring my best. They bring their best and let player skill determine the rest.
It is not Better, It is not worse, it is just what it is.
The whole idea [Besides selling more models] is for You to Play what You want to play, good, bad, broken, it does not matter. If You have a unit of models that You have not played since 5th, but You did not because they were not any good, but You liked them anyways, now You have no excuse not to pull them out.
How is bringing the lowest common denominator better than bringing the highest common denominator? I don't see the point of arbitrary "play like scrubs is better!"
I like games where I can bring what I want, but I still have to put thought into my army instead of just plop down models at random.
I love the Freebooter model from PP, but its rules kind of suck. However, given the right style of army and support, the thing can pull off some crazy good shenanigans.
I can bring what I want, but it still requires thought and effort.
As for games, I bring my best. They bring their best and let player skill determine the rest.
@MWHistorian - this is exactly why I said that the game is not for players like you (or me).
I generally want to bring my best too (though not always, often I like to play strange scenarios). Some people do not wish to put thought and effort into building their army, and instead, want to build their army based on the attractiveness of models or what they *think* should function as an army, to the exclusion of the rules. My wife is one of these people... if model A is nicer looking than model B, but A and B work well together, her preference is simply to take model A and not to take model B, rather than have a better functioning army. She also wants to put ZERO thought into "will this work well together", beyond her preconceived notions of what a fantasy army should look like, which is generally why she hates wargames, and likes Magic with like minded friends where the success of the game is determined by who has cards with the coolest artwork and how many hours they can stretch one game into.
Looking at cards is not a game.
It may be a past time and a hobby and very enjoyable. But it's not a game.
And believe me, I get it that sometimes people just want to shut off their brains and throw some dice. AOS is like the Saints Row of gaming. Go stop thinking and blow stuff up. I get it. (Except SR also had a lot of thought and effort put into it)
But don't pretend like it's some serious effort by GW to change the face of wargaming.
It's just lazy writing.
The issue with practically every game, even a well-balanced one, you cannot just buy an army based on "I like this model, and these look like they'd look cool together" without having read the rules for it first (and expect to win). You can't look at Infinity and go, "Hey, those service robots with humans on them look awesome. I want my whole army to be made up of them!"
Should you though? I mean, I can't expect to just turn up to a marathon and expect to come first, with zero preparation can I? It takes 4-6 months to train up. A lot of miles goes in, the right shoes, the right diet, the right training plan, the right gear etc etc. things worth doing require their participants to put some effort into doing them.
The experiment of AoS is that you *don't* have to bring your best because you know the other guy is. You can bring *anything* -- you can bring *the worst list in the world* and still expect a fair game, because the game is built on the premise that the other guy will adjust his list to be equally ineffective as yours.
And when the other guy is a whiny, temper throwing man child? Youre making assumptions, and you know what they say about assumptions, right? You're assuming the other guy will 'play down' instead of walking away because you put a bunch of crap on the table. You're assuming the other guy will be an 'enabler' for whatever the heck you want to do. Foolish, if you ask me.
Likewise, the experiment of AoS is that you aren't even *trying* to bring your best. You're trying -- wanting -- to play the lowest common denominator (based on models available) between you and your opponent's army in effectiveness in the specific scenario that you are playing. It's a totally different mindset.
And that falls down the second someone does bring their best.
And fyi, i do thie whole 'play down' thing in warmachine as well. Not 'can do'. 'Do'.
TrollSlayerThorak'Khun'Na wrote: Can't go back to old way. 40k limiting and restricted now. AoS is the future. Buy whatever you want is the new way. World of opportunity open.
In what universe is 40k "limiting and restricted"? They've all but done away with the FOC and with multiple detachments, formations, allies etc. you can take a whole lot more as a legal force than when I last played.
TrollSlayerThorak'Khun'Na wrote: Can't go back to old way. 40k limiting and restricted now. AoS is the future. Buy whatever you want is the new way. World of opportunity open.
In what universe is 40k "limiting and restricted"? They've all but done away with the FOC and with multiple detachments, formations, allies etc. you can take a whole lot more as a legal force than when I last played.
Can't just buy what I like. Look at online store - oh I gotta buy certain allotments from different sections? I can't just look at the rules here on the site? I gotta buy a book to find out what this guy even does and what a good amount of this unit is? Screw that.
Great post and agree with almost everything you have said.
I am a competitive player - and I think that the system does support competitive play as well as hobby play. This i think is great and is much improved from previous versions - the tournament community especially internationally has responded badly to AOS but I think over time it will grow and build back to or hopefully in excess of the position it was under 8th edition.
Also I have played hobbyists how can be just as much 'that guy' as hardcore tournament players
40k is very restrictive in pickups, if you like winnng.
If you love dreadnaughts and terminators because they're cool, bulky models and take them in spades you'll lose a disproportionate number if games.
By the way, playing MtG to stretch a game out to 2 hours and not to just pass turns is harder than it sounds. It absolutely is a game; just like Minecraft is. It's just a different game (that some may think is stupid).
Talys wrote: 40k is very restrictive in pickups, if you like winnng.
If you love dreadnaughts and terminators because they're cool, bulky models and take them in spades you'll lose a disproportionate number if games.
Hold on folks, the goalposts are on the move again.
Neither of those things are a fault of army construction and the framework put in place by it. They are faults of balance within the game system and the metagame that has appeared as a result of it.
Some friends of mine and me were talking and one came up with an analogy that I think fits the difference.
A lot of people were expecting/wanting 9th to be Batman
we go AoS which is a lot like Deadpool
1] There are very little rules and they play them loose.
2] It is not about how much c4 is needed, it is about how much you have.
3] You can [Suppose to in some cases] break the 4th wall.
It took me a while, but I think they were right.
AoS is all about fun, sometimes Brain-Dead fun, sometimes serious fun, but it is supposed fun.
When you go into the game you have a basic plan of what you are wanting to do an objective {Whatever that may be}. It is important that you get there, but it is more important how you get there.
Talys wrote: 40k is very restrictive in pickups, if you like winnng.
If you love dreadnaughts and terminators because they're cool, bulky models and take them in spades you'll lose a disproportionate number if games.
Hold on folks, the goalposts are on the move again.
Neither of those things are a fault of army construction and the framework put in place by it. They are faults of balance within the game system and the metagame that has appeared as a result of it.
No, not at all, that is EXACTLY the goalpost. Let's make it WMH instead. I love the Victoria Haley model, and I love Stormguard and Stormblades. I want to make my army ENTIRELY with these models, and nothing else. Doing so would guarantee that I lose any pickup game. Same goes with 40k, and really, most other wargames.
In most wargames, building a good army is CENTRAL of the game. In AoS, building a good army is not central to the game, because the spirit in which it is designed is for the two players to cooperatively determine a fair fight using the available models. I can't think of any other wargame that is designed to be that way, and *forces* you to play that way.
Another way to put it: in most games, building efficiency in an army is important; in AoS, only understanding the efficiency in an army is important. Because if your army is inefficient, you and your opponent recognize this during pregame setup, and the inefficient army gets more stuff, or the efficient army gets less stuff, until the two sides are deemed balanced relative to the scenario being played. Of course, a lot of gamers will just dismiss this type of play out of hand and go, "God, that sounds like the stupidest thing ever. "
I'm just saying, there are also gamers who think of exactly the same thing, "Wow, that's the most wonderful thing ever." I am 100% sure of this, because I'm married to one, and she and her friends have really gotten into AoS, in a way that I never thought possible of their group.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anpu42 wrote: AoS is all about fun, sometimes Brain-Dead fun, sometimes serious fun, but it is supposed fun. When you go into the game you have a basic plan of what you are wanting to do an objective {Whatever that may be}. It is important that you get there, but it is more important how you get there.
This is not a bad way of thinking of it As the OP put, a lot of stressors to "having fun" are removed -- at least for some people. By coincidence or design, the same stressors are factors which are "fun" for the group of people who don't like those stressors... so it works out for the AoS crowed.
End of the day... it is a fundamentally different way imagining a miniature or war game that will appeal greatly to some, and repulse others. If the former is a big enough group, GW will have a hit; otherwise, it will be a one-edition-wonder, and the AoS 2e will come out with drastically different rules.
you do know in ANY game you can look at someones army and if it is weak change the list during deployment to make the game better yea?
AOS is unique because it forces you to tailor your armies for each other. If you cannot tailor your armies you will have some very bland games.
I also want to point out that your examples are contradicting.
"If I want to take X in X game I will lose"
"If I take X against someones X in AOS without tailoring I will lose"
Whats the difference again? The only difference is you need a game to tell you to list tailor before the game begins... Which means AOS is no different from other games in this regard, except other games do it better yet again.
If you take another game, the expectation is that if the points add up, the armies are equal, and therefore the fight should be fair. Therefore, people TRY to get as much mileage as they can out of whatever predetermined point size.
In AoS, there is no such expectation. Not only does this make the game highly unattractive to people who like squeezing mileage out of points, it attracts other people who prefer to game without the "stressor" (as the OP put it) of figuring out optimal armies for a point cost. You need to know how good your army is, but you don't need to make your army good. Because if it's a bad army, it will be relatively huge compared to your opponent's good army, to compensate. You go in expecting this, which is something you would never do in another game.
As to your example, it's not correct. It's more like this: "If I take X in AOS, my opponent must take out Y from their army so that we both think we have a good chance of winning." If I and my opponent can't come to an agreement on fairness (because I think Ogres are awesome and my opponent thinks his Ogres suck), the game never starts. By definition, every game of AoS should start after the two sides agree that the armies are fair. Of course you can do that with any game; it's just that few people do, especially in pickup games of predetermined army size (the paradigm is, "bring your best").
Talys wrote: @Swastakowey - the difference is very subtle.
If you take another game, the expectation is that if the points add up, the armies are equal, and therefore the fight should be fair. Therefore, people TRY to get as much mileage as they can out of whatever predetermined point size.
In AoS, there is no such expectation. Not only does this make the game highly unattractive to people who like squeezing mileage out of points, it attracts other people who prefer to game without the "stressor" (as the OP put it) of figuring out optimal armies for a point cost. You need to know how good your army is, but you don't need to make your army good. Because if it's a bad army, it will be relatively huge compared to your opponent's good army, to compensate. You go in expecting this, which is something you would never do in another game.
As to your example, it's not correct. It's more like this: "If I take X in AOS, my opponent must take out Y from their army so that we both think we have a good chance of winning." If I and my opponent can't come to an agreement on fairness (because I think Ogres are awesome and my opponent thinks his Ogres suck), the game never starts. By definition, every game of AoS should start after the two sides agree that the armies are fair. Of course you can do that with any game; it's just that few people do, especially in pickup games of predetermined army size (the paradigm is, "bring your best").
Well the expectation is very dependent on the players not the game yes? In say 40k (easiest example) if I arrange a game of 5k points then I myself have set the expectation of a 5k point game. If I say lets do this scenario I have planned then I have changed the expectation. I have done, in many games, added points to the weaker army, or changed the points dependent on the scenario or ignored points all together. The game is irrelevant.
If you and your opponent cannot agree on anything before the game then there will be no game... how is AOS special here again? Oh... it's not...
I think you are making a huge assumption, that the rules are the reason for X, however it all comes down to the players.
Swastakowey wrote: Well the expectation is very dependent on the players not the game yes? In say 40k (easiest example) if I arrange a game of 5k points then I myself have set the expectation of a 5k point game. If I say lets do this scenario I have planned then I have changed the expectation. I have done, in many games, added points to the weaker army, or changed the points dependent on the scenario or ignored points all together. The game is irrelevant.
If you and your opponent cannot agree on anything before the game then there will be no game... how is AOS special here again? Oh... it's not...
I think you are making a huge assumption, that the rules are the reason for X, however it all comes down to the players.
You are absolutely right: the expectation is totally dependent on the players. What you describe is *exactly* how we play 40k (well not 5k points. That would take forever ). However, it's not usually reasonable (certainly not common) to ask strangers to do this in a pickup game.
The real difference is, AoS has a massive sign over it saying, "People who don't want to figure out fair games before every game: look elsewhere, coz we're not going to help you along with a system that justifies whatever you want to field against whatever they want to field."
I've already seen in the people who actually *like* AoS a different mindset to a lot of 40k and WMH players I've run into in the wild. And again, I'm not really a pro-AoS type of guy. I like playing 40k the way that's precisely how you describe.
Swastakowey wrote: Well the expectation is very dependent on the players not the game yes? In say 40k (easiest example) if I arrange a game of 5k points then I myself have set the expectation of a 5k point game. If I say lets do this scenario I have planned then I have changed the expectation. I have done, in many games, added points to the weaker army, or changed the points dependent on the scenario or ignored points all together. The game is irrelevant.
If you and your opponent cannot agree on anything before the game then there will be no game... how is AOS special here again? Oh... it's not...
I think you are making a huge assumption, that the rules are the reason for X, however it all comes down to the players.
You are absolutely right: the expectation is totally dependent on the players. What you describe is *exactly* how we play 40k (well not 5k points. That would take forever ). However, it's not usually reasonable (certainly not common) to ask strangers to do this in a pickup game.
The real difference is, AoS has a massive sign over it saying, "People who don't want to figure out fair games before every game: look elsewhere, coz we're not going to help you along with a system that justifies whatever you want to field against whatever they want to field."
I've already seen in the people who actually *like* AoS a different mindset to a lot of 40k and WMH players I've run into in the wild. And again, I'm not really a pro-AoS type of guy. I like playing 40k the way that's precisely how you describe.
You are bang on, AOS kind of forces you to play the game a certain way. In my opinion a game with more options of Game Play available is better than a game that aims to kick off a bunch of people who would otherwise be fun to play against etc.
This is why people do not like it, because they have to play it X way instead of having X with the option to remove it.
But yes you are correct, AOS pushing a large demographic away. This is also exactly why this game will not last very long in my opinion. Not without heaps of changes anyway.
"This is why it won't last long in my opinion"... I wouldn't bet on that. Games Workshop is a very large company that will be around for many years to come. Gw financials would show they care still healthy and sustainable. I disagree with their price increases, but gw is smarter than most think. Yes they have become a business about making money, which is in reality smart from a business perspective.
They have also started giving back to the community a bit. Free app for aos? Free rules? Price deals for multi unit sets (havent seen that for years and now its back).
I have heard many speak of gw's demise for years; it hasn't happened yet and I doubt we would see that for at least a decade. As for age of sigmar, gw is fully behind it and is not going back. I have actually seen the naysayers leave or join oas, and I've seen a steady increase in the aos crowd daily. I'm glad to see more and more find fun in this game everyday.
455_PWR wrote: "This is why it won't last long in my opinion"... I wouldn't bet on that. Games Workshop is a very large company that will be around for many years to come. Gw financials would show they care still healthy and sustainable. I disagree with their price increases, but gw is smarter than most think. Yes they have become a business about making money, which is in reality smart from a business perspective.
They have also started giving back to the community a bit. Free app for aos? Free rules? Price deals for multi unit sets (havent seen that for years and now its back).
I have heard many speak of gw's demise for years; it hasn't happened yet and I doubt we would see that for at least a decade. As for age of sigmar, gw is fully behind it and is not going back. I have actually seen the naysayers leave or join oas, and I've seen a steady increase in the aos crowd daily. I'm glad to see more and more find fun in this game everyday.
I was talking about Age of Sigmar dude...
AOS is laughed at by even the kids here. Have yet to see a game besides our quick test. Chances are it will stay this way in my area, I also hope it stays this way.
I appreciate the re-review, although I don't think it'll change any minds. Haters gotta hate, and they are so invested in disliking the game, they cannot like it, no matter how good it is.
Also, I don't think AoS is in its final form. I think there will be formal war scrolls for ranked units and explicit "balancing" and so forth. Eventually.
If you take another game, the expectation is that if the points add up, the armies are equal, and therefore the fight should be fair. Therefore, people TRY to get as much mileage as they can out of whatever predetermined point size.
If I could just interject something here - in no way do points indicate any sort of balance. Point values are a constraint. Given this constraint (X number of points), efficiently create the most effective army that you can. When one person is quite efficient going against someone who in not so efficient, the game is in no way balanced at all. The constraint, however, is mutually shared, and thus both players have equal opportunity to equally create efficient army lists.
Some people VERY much enjoy this challenge. I'd say that something like Warmachine (sorry, no experience with 40k) is largely built around army lists, and some people just go nuts creating stupidly efficient lists, and counters to other people's stupidly efficient lists. I played a 15 pt game with Khador where I had 9 models on the board, but my opponent had 26 Cryx models - all of which had oppressive synergy making them all tough and easily resurrected. That was not a balanced game, an no amount of skillful playing on my part would've resulted in a win.
The designers of Magic the Gathering design around 3 different gamer types - Johnny, Timmy, and Spike. Timmy likes to win big. Johnny likes to pull off combos. And Spike - Spike is summed up as winning 9 out of 10 games, but if he felt he should've won the 10th, he walks away unhappy. Since that article was written, they've added two more profiles, Vorthos (fluff integration) and Melvin (mechanics integration).
I don't know how much truth there is in those personality types, but I think the thing to take away from it is that there are different kinds of players who want different things from the game. There's no one true way to play that everybody shares. Everybody is drawn to games because of different things.
When people argue about how important points are, they aren't arguing about points themselves. They want some sort of constraint - any constraint - that puts the players on a semi-equal footing. It's not balance and it's not fair (especially when some players just download dominant lists from the internet, not even doing the work themselves). The constraint is a test of sorts. It tests how knowledgeable a player is of the game and their mastery of it. Creating an efficient list is just another battlefield that they seek victory upon. Even downloading a list, they still know how it works. They didn't invent the list, but they can still master it, thus proving they are worthy of it.
AoS has no points, and it isn't a lack of imagination that keeps people from accepting this. Points are a way to interact with the game, even while not playing (you can create lists on the toilet, you can't play 40k on it - or shouldn't). Points are a litmus test for mastery of the game's mechanics. Points are a challenge to overcome - one that you can compete with on a level beyond just moving little army men around. Not having those constraints removes a very large part of the game for some players (perhaps their favorite part), but it isn't about expectations of balance. In no way is it about creating fair games. Personally, I find points frustrating precisely because of these expectations of fairness.
Age of Sigmar is more like a toolbox. We can create new constraints and lay them on top of the game without breaking anything. We can even lay points on top of it. We can have a thousand different ways to do it, each different and useful in different situations. With no One Right Way(tm) of doing things, we can do it any way we want. That has to annoy people who seek efficiency - how do you minmax infinity? - but it makes for a game with a bunch of different futures for a bunch of different players - Timmy, Johnny, Spike, Vorthos, and Melvin can all find enjoyment in the Venn diagram, with those 4 pages of Age of Sigmar rules being the union they all share.
Sorry for that rant. I've just spent the last few weeks hearing about how important points are to the almighty Balance, and I disagree.
Yup dude, swastakowey, my post was about age of sigmar too and that the game is here to stay. The gw stuff was because i wanted to throw in something more than just opinion and gw financials are available to everyone.
Sqorgar, that was a great post! I agree with you on pretty much everything too. Points isn't the real issue and there are many games in which synergy and army composition must be well studied and personally thought out.
Haha yea sure mate. I wonder how many people play their crappy board games... or how often people play Kill Team, or the Fantasy version of kill team etc.
I am very sure AOS will be different from the rest of GW mini games...
I give it 2 years at most before this game is hardly played anywhere unless GW makes changes to it.
I play kill teams, almost weekly. I also play planet strike, cities of death, the arena minigame from crusade of fire, and occasionally the old battle mission book...
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: I play kill teams, almost weekly. I also play planet strike, cities of death, the arena minigame from crusade of fire, and occasionally the old battle mission book...
Cool, im sure thats very common among GW players...
I too play Cities of death and kill team. The rules are nasty but they are a bit of fun with some work. But please don't try make out like it is common, because we all know it isn't common for people to play those.
The Riddle of Steel wrote: Agree or disagree, this was an excellent post. Thoughtful, well-written, organized, and with some very good points.
I agreed with most, disagreed with some. But I enjoyed reading it all.
Thank you. I am relatively new to miniature gaming. I played Warmachine briefly when it first started, over a decade ago, but AoS brought me back. There's been a lot of anger surrounding it, which has made it difficult to engage in the hobby online when I'm not around friends to play it with. It's been frustrating to lurk without the ability to defend a game I find so interesting.
I'd be more than happy to discuss any points you disagreed with. That was more of a preliminary idea on what points really mean and I'm not sure all the thoughts are fully formed yet. Nothing would please me more than to talk about Age of Sigmar without someone suggesting it is for kids or too simple or a money grab by a greedy corporation or has space marines rip offs (they actually look like a cross between Helios, the Greek sun god, and Ares, the Greek god of war - not stormtroopers with oversized pauldrons). AoS is actually quite fascinating in how is skirts typical norms and makes you think about the hobby in a different way, and it's a shame people can enjoy that privilege without getting butthurt.
If you take another game, the expectation is that if the points add up, the armies are equal, and therefore the fight should be fair. Therefore, people TRY to get as much mileage as they can out of whatever predetermined point size.
If I could just interject something here - in no way do points indicate any sort of balance. Point values are a constraint. Given this constraint (X number of points), efficiently create the most effective army that you can. When one person is quite efficient going against someone who in not so efficient, the game is in no way balanced at all. The constraint, however, is mutually shared, and thus both players have equal opportunity to equally create efficient army lists.
Spoiler:
Some people VERY much enjoy this challenge. I'd say that something like Warmachine (sorry, no experience with 40k) is largely built around army lists, and some people just go nuts creating stupidly efficient lists, and counters to other people's stupidly efficient lists. I played a 15 pt game with Khador where I had 9 models on the board, but my opponent had 26 Cryx models - all of which had oppressive synergy making them all tough and easily resurrected. That was not a balanced game, an no amount of skillful playing on my part would've resulted in a win.
The designers of Magic the Gathering design around 3 different gamer types - Johnny, Timmy, and Spike. Timmy likes to win big. Johnny likes to pull off combos. And Spike - Spike is summed up as winning 9 out of 10 games, but if he felt he should've won the 10th, he walks away unhappy. Since that article was written, they've added two more profiles, Vorthos (fluff integration) and Melvin (mechanics integration).
I don't know how much truth there is in those personality types, but I think the thing to take away from it is that there are different kinds of players who want different things from the game. There's no one true way to play that everybody shares. Everybody is drawn to games because of different things.
When people argue about how important points are, they aren't arguing about points themselves. They want some sort of constraint - any constraint - that puts the players on a semi-equal footing. It's not balance and it's not fair (especially when some players just download dominant lists from the internet, not even doing the work themselves). The constraint is a test of sorts. It tests how knowledgeable a player is of the game and their mastery of it. Creating an efficient list is just another battlefield that they seek victory upon. Even downloading a list, they still know how it works. They didn't invent the list, but they can still master it, thus proving they are worthy of it.
AoS has no points, and it isn't a lack of imagination that keeps people from accepting this. Points are a way to interact with the game, even while not playing (you can create lists on the toilet, you can't play 40k on it - or shouldn't). Points are a litmus test for mastery of the game's mechanics. Points are a challenge to overcome - one that you can compete with on a level beyond just moving little army men around. Not having those constraints removes a very large part of the game for some players (perhaps their favorite part), but it isn't about expectations of balance. In no way is it about creating fair games. Personally, I find points frustrating precisely because of these expectations of fairness.
Age of Sigmar is more like a toolbox. We can create new constraints and lay them on top of the game without breaking anything. We can even lay points on top of it. We can have a thousand different ways to do it, each different and useful in different situations. With no One Right Way(tm) of doing things, we can do it any way we want. That has to annoy people who seek efficiency - how do you minmax infinity? - but it makes for a game with a bunch of different futures for a bunch of different players - Timmy, Johnny, Spike, Vorthos, and Melvin can all find enjoyment in the Venn diagram, with those 4 pages of Age of Sigmar rules being the union they all share.
Sorry for that rant. I've just spent the last few weeks hearing about how important points are to the almighty Balance, and I disagree.
Thanks for the post. It's well put and largely, I agree with a lot that you say.
First of all, you are right: points are a constraint, rather than a balancing factor, and therein lies the balancing dilemma. In WMH or 40k, you're expected to create the most efficient army given the constraint of points, and this mechanism is problematic for some gaming types.
This, I don't quite agree with:
Points are a litmus test for mastery of the game's mechanics. Points are a challenge to overcome - one that you can compete with on a level beyond just moving little army men around.
It's correct to a point until you've mastered your wargame of choice, which, frankly, doesn't take long (mastering a wargame is nowhere near the difficulty of becoming skilled in chess, for example). But past that, points and army list test hardcore gamers' ability bend the rules, and if you are very skilled, break them completely. This wouldn't even be as bad if, after one person played a super-duper combination once, it didn't flood the internet and become the FoTM list. This is the Dark Side of the points system.
Where I love my points is that they are a constraint, and I like to see what I can build within that constraint -- even if I never play the list. In the same sort of way that I enjoy equipping Mechs and paying games that involve configuration and micromanagement. It just tweaks some nerd itch.
Very, very rarely do I use points as anything other than the starting point (pardon the pun) for where fairness starts.
AoS is actually quite fascinating in how is skirts typical norms and makes you think about the hobby in a different way, and it's a shame people can enjoy that privilege without getting butthurt.
Yes, it is very fascinating how it skirts the norms of wargaming. I really hope it succeeds
The major reason that it's not for me is not the points (though I do miss them). I think the game is pretty fun, but my most significant issues can't be fixed, unfortunately -- 1) I like scifi a lot more than fantasy in wargaming, partly because I find that scifi kits are more fun to model and 2) I like games with a lot more models than what AoS is optimal for.
If you take another game, the expectation is that if the points add up, the armies are equal, and therefore the fight should be fair. Therefore, people TRY to get as much mileage as they can out of whatever predetermined point size.
If I could just interject something here - in no way do points indicate any sort of balance. Point values are a constraint. Given this constraint (X number of points), efficiently create the most effective army that you can. When one person is quite efficient going against someone who in not so efficient, the game is in no way balanced at all. The constraint, however, is mutually shared, and thus both players have equal opportunity to equally create efficient army lists.
Spoiler:
Some people VERY much enjoy this challenge. I'd say that something like Warmachine (sorry, no experience with 40k) is largely built around army lists, and some people just go nuts creating stupidly efficient lists, and counters to other people's stupidly efficient lists. I played a 15 pt game with Khador where I had 9 models on the board, but my opponent had 26 Cryx models - all of which had oppressive synergy making them all tough and easily resurrected. That was not a balanced game, an no amount of skillful playing on my part would've resulted in a win.
The designers of Magic the Gathering design around 3 different gamer types - Johnny, Timmy, and Spike. Timmy likes to win big. Johnny likes to pull off combos. And Spike - Spike is summed up as winning 9 out of 10 games, but if he felt he should've won the 10th, he walks away unhappy. Since that article was written, they've added two more profiles, Vorthos (fluff integration) and Melvin (mechanics integration).
I don't know how much truth there is in those personality types, but I think the thing to take away from it is that there are different kinds of players who want different things from the game. There's no one true way to play that everybody shares. Everybody is drawn to games because of different things.
When people argue about how important points are, they aren't arguing about points themselves. They want some sort of constraint - any constraint - that puts the players on a semi-equal footing. It's not balance and it's not fair (especially when some players just download dominant lists from the internet, not even doing the work themselves). The constraint is a test of sorts. It tests how knowledgeable a player is of the game and their mastery of it. Creating an efficient list is just another battlefield that they seek victory upon. Even downloading a list, they still know how it works. They didn't invent the list, but they can still master it, thus proving they are worthy of it.
AoS has no points, and it isn't a lack of imagination that keeps people from accepting this. Points are a way to interact with the game, even while not playing (you can create lists on the toilet, you can't play 40k on it - or shouldn't). Points are a litmus test for mastery of the game's mechanics. Points are a challenge to overcome - one that you can compete with on a level beyond just moving little army men around. Not having those constraints removes a very large part of the game for some players (perhaps their favorite part), but it isn't about expectations of balance. In no way is it about creating fair games. Personally, I find points frustrating precisely because of these expectations of fairness.
Age of Sigmar is more like a toolbox. We can create new constraints and lay them on top of the game without breaking anything. We can even lay points on top of it. We can have a thousand different ways to do it, each different and useful in different situations. With no One Right Way(tm) of doing things, we can do it any way we want. That has to annoy people who seek efficiency - how do you minmax infinity? - but it makes for a game with a bunch of different futures for a bunch of different players - Timmy, Johnny, Spike, Vorthos, and Melvin can all find enjoyment in the Venn diagram, with those 4 pages of Age of Sigmar rules being the union they all share.
Sorry for that rant. I've just spent the last few weeks hearing about how important points are to the almighty Balance, and I disagree.
Thanks for the post. It's well put and largely, I agree with a lot that you say.
First of all, you are right: points are a constraint, rather than a balancing factor, and therein lies the balancing dilemma. In WMH or 40k, you're expected to create the most efficient army given the constraint of points, and this mechanism is problematic for some gaming types.
This, I don't quite agree with:
Points are a litmus test for mastery of the game's mechanics. Points are a challenge to overcome - one that you can compete with on a level beyond just moving little army men around.
It's correct to a point until you've mastered your wargame of choice, which, frankly, doesn't take long (mastering a wargame is nowhere near the difficulty of becoming skilled in chess, for example). But past that, points and army list test hardcore gamers' ability bend the rules, and if you are very skilled, break them completely. This wouldn't even be as bad if, after one person played a super-duper combination once, it didn't flood the internet and become the FoTM list. This is the Dark Side of the points system.
Where I love my points is that they are a constraint, and I like to see what I can build within that constraint -- even if I never play the list. In the same sort of way that I enjoy equipping Mechs and paying games that involve configuration and micromanagement. It just tweaks some nerd itch.
Very, very rarely do I use points as anything other than the starting point (pardon the pun) for where fairness starts.
AoS is actually quite fascinating in how is skirts typical norms and makes you think about the hobby in a different way, and it's a shame people can enjoy that privilege without getting butthurt.
Yes, it is very fascinating how it skirts the norms of wargaming. I really hope it succeeds
The major reason that it's not for me is not the points (though I do miss them). I think the game is pretty fun, but my most significant issues can't be fixed, unfortunately -- 1) I like scifi a lot more than fantasy in wargaming, partly because I find that scifi kits are more fun to model and 2) I like games with a lot more models than what AoS is optimal for.
Points are intended to be both a balancing factor and a constraint. Its not "either or." FOC was also intended as a balancing factor and constraint. 40k and WFB have both gone through a lot of varieties of attempting to find an effective method. Given the variables involved, one will never get a "perfect" balance, but if you give on it completely it has a net negative on the game. The majority of people play games expecting a fair set of variables within to work.
Both sides in chess have the same pieces. All players in monopoly start with the same amount of money. All players in risk start with the same number of armies.
Would football be as fun if both sides could put as many players on the field as they could hire? I contend that a game which doesn't even pretend to provide balance will never be as popular as one that does. Find me any successful game on the market right now that doesn't have a balance mechanic of some sort.
Even MTG has balancing mechanics for its tournament play, and it started as a "pay to win" card game.
No, not at all, that is EXACTLY the goalpost. Let's make it WMH instead. I love the Victoria Haley model, and I love Stormguard and Stormblades. I want to make my army ENTIRELY with these models, and nothing else. Doing so would guarantee that I lose any pickup game.
I seriously doubt that. Haley is all kinds of nAsty, and always has game. I've seen stormnouns do extremely well, the silver line stormnouns offer great utility.
Thing is, in WMH, you have two or three list formats. If you are going into what you would regard as a bad match up, then don't use that list. Simples really. This list, against certain lightning spamming lists would be truly obnoxious. Spam lists like this, or butchers mad dogs of war can suffer from hard counters. This is not a bad thing.
(And by the way, you wouldn't be able to take a list only of those models. You need some jacks too.)
No, not at all, that is EXACTLY the goalpost. Let's make it WMH instead. I love the Victoria Haley model, and I love Stormguard and Stormblades. I want to make my army ENTIRELY with these models, and nothing else. Doing so would guarantee that I lose any pickup game.
I seriously doubt that. Haley is all kinds of nAsty, and always has game. I've seen stormnouns do extremely well, the silver line stormnouns offer great utility.
Thing is, in WMH, you have two or three list formats. If you are going into what you would regard as a bad match up, then don't use that list. Simples really. This list, against certain lightning spamming lists would be truly obnoxious. Spam lists like this, or butchers mad dogs of war can suffer from hard counters. This is not a bad thing.
(And by the way, you wouldn't be able to take a list only of those models. You need some jacks too.)
I picked some units that I liked, not totally stupid models Victoria Haley is my favorite Warcaster.
But really, you're just making my point: in AoS, you can use whatever models you want, in an unbound fashion that makes 40k's unbound seem rigid and inflexible. As long as one of the two armies can be reduced in power to be equivalent in strength to the other, and the two people can agree to what is fair, it's game on. There are literally no other restrictions. Why is this a good thing?
Without any knowledge of the game (literally, never having even read the 4 page rules or a single warscroll) you can walk into a store, buy an armful of models you like, build and paint them, and play them. You don't need to understand synnergies between units, or their effectiveness, or the local meta, or what kinds of nasty your opponent might have. Worst case scenario: you'll have to take some of them out against some opponents, if their battle force happens to be weaker.
Best case scenario? You play against some people, learn the game more, and organically grow your army by picking and choosing better models that provide more synergies. As you improve, your opponent can also increase the power level of their army. When you play some weaker opponents, you'll have to take out some of your stuff. At no time do you have to feel guilty that your X points was badly spent, or that Y model is a waste of points or slots. And even when your army is much better, you can still include those really bad units, because they don't "cost" you anything; your opponent will just shrug and let you add them in, because it's a cool model you want to stick on the tabletop.
I can't overemphasize how appealing this method of army building is to some people -- for them, it far outweighs the "inconvenience" (in quotes, because some people don't feel it's an inconvenience at all) of having to cooperatively determine army fairness before the battle. Even more so since the people they run in to tend to be like-minded, and not be overly competitive, since AoS seems to attract that sort of player.
Talys wrote: in AoS, you can use whatever models you want, in an unbound fashion that makes 40k's unbound seem rigid and inflexible. As long as one of the two armies can be reduced in power to be equivalent in strength to the other, and the two people can agree to what is fair, it's game on.
I can't overemphasize how appealing this method of army building is to some people -- for them, it far outweighs the "inconvenience" (in quotes, because some people don't feel it's an inconvenience at all) of having to cooperatively determine army fairness before the battle. Even more so since the people they run in to tend to be like-minded, and not be overly competitive, since AoS seems to attract that sort of player.
Yup. I just got my head handed to me playing a special scenario game. Not only because I was rolling like crap and my dudes got slaughtered. Still a good game, even though the result was a total blowout.
I think you are absolutely right there. I don't know that we will see a hardcore tournament set for AoS, but I rather get the feeling we are at the start of a journey. The new Battletome next week will be interesting as an expansion...
But really, you're just making my point: in AoS, you can use whatever models you want, in an unbound fashion that makes 40k's unbound seem rigid and inflexible.
Only up to the point where the other guy doesn't like what I bring for whatever reason*, at which point I become tfg and have to change up what I bring, regardless of my likes and dislikes to suit them or never get a game in. Balance by social pressure aka bullying. No thanks.
*there have already been examples of the 'yeah I'd play you once and never again' type armies. So claiming you can play whatever you want is misleading at best and verging on intellectually dishonest. You are also still assuming the other guy is an enabler, who will let you get away with whatever you want. Competitive tfg has no interest in this game, but he is not the only species of tfg...
I think you are absolutely right there. I don't know that we will see a hardcore tournament set for AoS, but I rather get the feeling we are at the start of a journey.
We are at the start of a new game, actually. Thus, for sure, there will be more to come in the future.
Although I really doubt there will be truly something for "hardcore tournament"...all this noise going against "the competitive tournament mentality" doesn't come from nothing, after all.
Herohammernostalgia wrote: On Balance: Why is that so important in a wargame? even a competitive one. Even fictional battles are rarely balanced, let alone real life one's. If this game is a simulation of war to you, why have a points-system to make armies "Equal"? Something that only ever happens in (most) games.
It's perfectly possible to have a game where the scenario is unbalanced in-universe, but the players have an equal chance of victory. An example would be a "last stand" scenario, where one side has a big numbers advantage, or recycles destroyed units--but if they don't completely wipe out the defender in a time limit, they lose.
argonak wrote: Points are intended to be both a balancing factor and a constraint. Its not "either or."
Points are sort of a scenario creation device and are balanced in that both players are working within the same constraints. However, the games that they produce are rarely balanced except in cases where both players are equally adept at minmaxing them. I don't think points are particularly good at building balanced games, except in extreme cases. And I think most players aren't trying to create balanced games with them. By trying to create a more efficient army than their opponent, they are purposely aiming to create unbalanced games in their favor.
Given the variables involved, one will never get a "perfect" balance, but if you give on it completely it has a net negative on the game. The majority of people play games expecting a fair set of variables within to work.
I remember in the LEGO board games, LEGO said that the games have a high element of chance in order to give all players equal involvement in the game. When a player loses because of a dice roll, they take it less personally and are more willing to play again. I think the entire point of having dice in AoS, and other wargames, is to give just enough variance to victory that even a superior army and tactics is not a guaranteed win - and I think this is a good thing because it gives both players a bit of hope that they'll win.
But then, are the games balanced because both players have the same randomness to contend with? Or are they unbalanced because even the best skill has a chance of losing? I don't know. My point is that the introduction of the gambling element is purposefully put there to counterbalance superior army lists and tactics, not to support them. They balance the game towards enjoyment of both players, not creating a fair fight where superior skill always succeeds. Balance isn't always one thing, and decisions are made the undermine balance in one area in favor of others.
I contend that a game which doesn't even pretend to provide balance will never be as popular as one that does.
"Pretend" is the important part there. Balance is an illusion. Two players are unlikely to be equally capable in all ways. Even when they are equally tactically, they may differ in other capabilities important to the hobby. The Warmachine armies I play against are never painted, rarely assembled, and half the time, proxy units. Those players can still play the game, but there is no doubt that they are not engaging with the hobby in the most optimal manner. If one rewards painted models with victory points, that is balanced towards a superior experience at the cost of unbalancing a (presumably) fair fight.
Army creation constraints are there more to ensure a specific scale and diversity of units, which is beneficial to model purchases, but doesn't always result in fair fights. What is balance? Is it just a fair fight? Or does it represent the various fulcrums around which game decisions are made? I think it is the latter, but players have convinced themselves that it is all about fairness because it makes them feel superior when they claim victory.
Find me any successful game on the market right now that doesn't have a balance mechanic of some sort.
Age of Sigmar?
Seriously, I think one needs to look at AoS as a toolkit in which the players can provide a wealth of different options on top of it. As it stands, I think players can play just fine with like minded people for fun. But anything more than that will require support from the players - and that's not a bad thing. I think that's pretty good too. By not providing One Right Way of doing things, it allows for a greater variety of systems, each tailored to specific player desires. Magic has a half dozen different deck building systems, but most players just stick to the tournament rules because those are the One Right Way. If GW never uses the same tournament rules twice, players have the freedom to create and use whatever systems they like the most - and can freely switch between them.
But really, you're just making my point: in AoS, you can use whatever models you want, in an unbound fashion that makes 40k's unbound seem rigid and inflexible.
Only up to the point where the other guy doesn't like what I bring for whatever reason*, at which point I become tfg and have to change up what I bring, regardless of my likes and dislikes to suit them or never get a game in. Balance by social pressure aka bullying. No thanks.
*there have already been examples of the 'yeah I'd play you once and never again' type armies. So claiming you can play whatever you want is misleading at best and verging on intellectually dishonest. You are also still assuming the other guy is an enabler, who will let you get away with whatever you want. Competitive tfg has no interest in this game, but he is not the only species of tfg...
You call the other guy an "enabler". Another group would call the same person a "social gamer".
The game works extremely well for balance when all people involved are social gamers, which is true of any game, but the point is: this game appears to be a strong draw for that type of gamer, because, as I said, it's impossible to play as any other type of game without making modifications, like adding a point system. So, your likelihood of meeting a like-minded person is just greatly enhanced, and that's as good a reason as any to choose a game.
Keep in mind that the more social gamer will be less interested in complex mechanics, large rulebooks, and victory-by-ambush, too; instead drawn to the more social aspects of gaming, the storytelling, and the models.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sqorgar wrote: "Pretend" is the important part there. Balance is an illusion. Two players are unlikely to be equally capable in all ways.
This is very true. In addition: if you take two perfectly balanced armies in one scenario and put them in another, they may suddenly become lopsided. Points do not account for factors such as surface area (table size), line of sight, cover, and significant terrain with relation to the units that are being placed. For example, units which can ignore terrain penalties will cost a little more. Fair. But If there is no terrain of that sort, you're paying those points for nothing. Units which have long gun ranges are greatly penalized if packed buildings interrupt those firing lanes. Large and powerful units are greatly hampered if the map is urban, and the density of the buildings restrict their mobility.
My point is simply that a unit worth 100 points on a desert map might be worth 120 points on a really large desert map, and 60 points on a city map.
Then, in the interest of fairness, to accurately reflect synergies, the unit should really be more expensive if taken with certain other units that can create powerful combinations, and less expensive if taken by themselves. And THOSE synergies should be costed against the map, too. So in a 4x4 surface, a magical blast of 24" is much more significant than on an 8x12 surface.
At the end of the day, making a fight fair takes a lot more than saying, "this unit is better, and is therefore worth 1.5x that unit", which is essentially what points do.
Seriously, I think one needs to look at AoS as a toolkit in which the players can provide a wealth of different options on top of it. As it stands, I think players can play just fine with like minded people for fun. But anything more than that will require support from the players - and that's not a bad thing. I think that's pretty good too. By not providing One Right Way of doing things, it allows for a greater variety of systems, each tailored to specific player desires. Magic has a half dozen different deck building systems, but most players just stick to the tournament rules because those are the One Right Way. If GW never uses the same tournament rules twice, players have the freedom to create and use whatever systems they like the most - and can freely switch between them.
This is part of both the problem and the solution.
It's a wonderful game that attracts a certain player type and an awesome toolkit for people who want a framework to build something else. But it's a lousy game for people who just want an OOB game where they can meet up on Saturday to play constraint-based armies and just beat the snot out of each other without other considerations.
GW is making the bet that a game focused on attracting the former type is more profitable for them than just building another WMH-type game.
Talys wrote: My point is simply that a unit worth 100 points on a desert map might be worth 120 points on a really large desert map, and 60 points on a city map.
My thinking on that is that you could potentially model that kind of difference with a point system. For instance, unit A is X points, unit B is Y points, and the synergy between them is Z points. Take just A, X points. Take just B, Y points. Take A + B, X + Y + Z points. That Z value is the missing component that allows for fair games... but then you have a list of synergy point values a mile long that would need to be updated with the release of each new unit.
It is by no means a perfect system, but I think AoS is the perfect toolkit to make an attempt at it. The special abilities of units are standardized by name (as near as I can tell, all "Sigmarite Shield" abilities are identical), so instead of saying unit A + (B or C or D or E), you could say unit A + any unit with "Sigmarite Shield". And you could standardize point values for the abilities themselves, such that any unit with Sigmarite Shield gets the same bump up in points. It would be an interesting effort, I think, but I have no idea how complicated or interesting it would make the resulting effort feel.
This is part of both the problem and the solution.
It's a wonderful game that attracts a certain player type and an awesome toolkit for people who want a framework to build something else. But it's a lousy game for people who just want an OOB game where they can meet up on Saturday to play constraint-based armies and just beat the snot out of each other without other considerations.
GW is making the bet that a game focused on attracting the former type is more profitable for them than just building another WMH-type game.
I think the game is perfectly playable out of the box, but I'm more okay with ambiguity - most of the time, the intent is dead obvious and the people who argue against it do so with extreme, impractical edge cases that probably will never happen (what if I had 7,000,000 demon models to summon?). In cases where the vagueness does impact gameplay, there is usually one answer which is obviously more fun, fair, and sportsman-like (double swords doing twice the attacks AND getting to reroll ones? That seems a bit disproportionate, doesn't it?). Ambiguity is frightening to people who play games for the purpose of creating efficiency, but while obvious isn't the same as explicit, it's pretty close in my book.
I think that maybe the open toolkit approach to Sigmar may alienate players accustomed to a specific way of playing, but they would easily be welcomed back to the fold once a suitable replacement is found. In other words, it is only alienating right now. It won't be a year from now. Traditions will be made, new manners of understanding will be found and shared, and after the newness has been replaced with some level of familiarity, it will once again be a comfortable places. Things that are ambiguous now will eventually be figured out. Those weird edge cases that never happen, will have comforting limits placed upon them.
Basically, I'm saying that because AoS is new, it is not fully understood, and that's frustrating to players who are accustomed to being masters of a game. AoS won't always be new, and that frustration will dissipate with familiarity.
You call the other guy an "enabler". Another group would call the same person a "social gamer".
.
Twisting my words talys. -1 for you
Your still assuming the 'social gamer' on the other side of the table is going to let you put down whatever you want and acquiesce to your every desire. What happens when thry say 'no', or 'they don't want to play that', which goes back to your original point (nice attempt to deflect and goalpost move by the way*) of aos being a game where 'you can play whatever you want'. Which, clearly it isn't. It's a game revolving around self limiting and self policing, social accords and jumping through moral hoops to define what's acceptable and what's not. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not the total freedom you claim it it.
* let's also not forget the goalpost shifting after your claim that taking a haley and stormnouns army would see you lose 'any' pick up game was rubbished. You've kept quiet there mate.
The game works extremely well for balance when all people involved are social gamers, which is true of any game, but the point is: this game appears to be a strong draw for that type of gamer, because, as I said, it's impossible to play as any other type of game without making modifications, like adding a point system. So, your likelihood of meeting a like-minded person is just greatly enhanced, and that's as good a reason as any to choose a game.
.
I fear It's also a draw for the 'casual at all costs' and the 'anti competitive' crowd who frown at anyone else having cool toys. You know the type - they hate all aspects of 'competitive play' which usually translates to 'how dare the other person play with cool toys!' because that's broken and tfg. Social tfg, in other words. I suspect, given time, this section will make itself known, and will make an unwelcome section of the plsyer base. Time will tell though.
And you are incorrect. I know plenty 'social gamers' that have absolutely no interest in aos. It's no more a strong draw for 'that type' of social gamers as any other game out there. What it is a draw for is people who want a very light, very simple game where you can essentially shuffle things together without thinking to hard. As wargames go, especially when compared to some of the other, far more detailed and intricate games, Aos is not far from 'dipping your toes in the water' for the most part.(I jokingly refer to aos as a wargame for non wargamers, though I suspect I am not necessarily wrong in my appraisal, considering a lot of the people I see being drawn to it). This is not a bad thing. This is not a criticism. I suspect there is a valid target audience for this game, and yes, I do think the game has 'value', and a place in the hobby as a whole.
I like highly detailed and intricate games like infinity and warmachine. The depth of knowledge required to do well, the intricacies, the fact that there is so much going on is a huge draw me and others and is a massive turn off others. Again,This is not a bad thing. In this sense, aos is almost the polar opposite to what I consider to be a good draw. But it is these same features thst repel me that will draw others in,
Keep in mind that the more social gamer will be less interested in complex mechanics, large rulebooks, and victory-by-ambush, too; instead drawn to the more social aspects of gaming, the storytelling, and the models.
.
You know, most of the warmachine players I know like the complex mechanics and large rulebooks in equal measure to the social aspect (aka beer)" storytelling and pretty models. It's not an aos thing. And you are displaying a bit of a skewed view of the playerbases of other games. I don't appreciate these generalisations, I find them inaccurate and crude.
I fear It's also a draw for the 'casual at all costs' and the 'anti competitive' crowd who frown at anyone else having cool toys. You know the type - they hate all aspects of 'competitive play' which usually translates to 'how dare the other person play with cool toys!' because that's broken and tfg. Social tfg, in other words. I suspect, given time, this section will make itself known, and will make an unwelcome section of the plsyer base. Time will tell though.
I think that it is more like "how dare you put your cheesy victory above a friendly, enjoyable game". A competitive player, by definition, is selfish.
I'm new to the mini-wargaming scene, but I've read a half dozen editorials recently about the "tournament player" versus more social, cooperative players. There is a very real divide in the gaming community between these different mindsets, and at times it feels like a battle for the very soul of wargaming. While I don't think AoS is diametrically opposed to tournament play, by purposely ignoring it, it does make a interesting statement about the type of players it is, at least initially, courting.
And you are incorrect. I know plenty 'social gamers' that have absolutely no interest in aos.
I'm assuming they aren't hanging around Age of Sigmar forums telling everybody how crap it is, though.
It's no more a strong draw for 'that type' of social gamers as any other game out there. What it is a draw for is people who want a very light, very simple game where you can essentially shuffle things together without thinking to hard.
I don't think AoS is actually that light or simple. There's a 3" radius around every figure that represents an implicit zone of control that can not be entered or crossed by enemy figures (except to charge in and engage in melee). This makes controlling the battlefield through position very possible and very interesting. On a table with a lot of terrain features, how you maneuver your units will absolutely be more important than the number or type of them. But it is not explicitly stated and nowhere in the 4 pages of rules does it even suggest the ramifications of the zone of control. So, it must be a light, simple wargame - like Chess or Go, right?
I like highly detailed and intricate games like infinity and warmachine.
I play, and enjoy, Warmachine, myself. In fact, I have five armies for it. While I would say that Warmachine is a more complex game than AoS, I'm not sure I would say it is more tactically interesting. Warmachine is largely decided by the armies you use, not really how you use them (since how you use them will also be dictated by the army's make up). Pretty much anything you can do, there are dozen ways to ignore it. Cover? This unit ignores cover. Create a shield wall? This warcaster can cast a spell allowing units to walk right through it. Hide one unit behind another? If it has a bigger base, it can't hide. Each warcaster has some stupidly overpowered feat they can pop which does something like make every nearby unit stationary (and thus automatically hit by melee weapons). And so on. Warmachine is all about building armies which negate your opponent's armies, which makes for tactically uninteresting gameplay. I still love the game though. Just in a different way.
I do agree that Warmachine players are more interested in the complexity of the game itself, which is why so few of them appear to fully engage the hobby. I have a group of about 8-10 people I play Warmachine with every weekend, and I'm the only one with painted figures. They also play without any notable terrain, outside of a token forest area that they never actually go into and instead "toe" the edge to gain the bonuses without having to put up with the drawbacks. Actually, that makes a good metaphor for Warmachine players. They just "toe" the hobby.
@Deadnight - I've actually been *working* today (gasp). Not much time to post Must keep it brief. If you'll notice, my post volume today is woefully small
In my local scene (which is very competitive), Haley and primarily stormguard/blades would get stomped. Like, 9/10 games. Of course, 75%+ of lists being hypercompetitive in the extreme in WMH here, doesn't help (but that, along with 75% unpainted armies plus 20% crappy painted armies and 0% nice terrain tables is a reason I'm not crazy about pickup WMH games). I don't know about your scene but the pickup scene here for WMH really exemplifies Win at All Costs -- and most people aren't brilliant strategists; they just know how to go to PP's forums and buy the lists that are most complained about at any given time. Not that I've been to a ton of WMH nights, and not that I've even played WMH in a very long time. They're just things I've wandered into here and there because I happened to be at the store, and watched for fun.
But that wasn't my point -- I was only using those models for an example. Again, in AoS you can pick ANY models, and the rules even encourage you to (I mean, it actually says this in the rules!). In WMH, the game encourages you to, you know, read the rules first, if you enjoy winning. Like most other games.
Enabler comment -- your word, not mine. I don't think I took it out of the context that you used it, and I AGREE. You think that some players feel that a player that will dumb down their army to the lowest common denominator of their opponent is enabling them to play with a crappy army. I'm sure many people feel this way, and would prefer to encourage the other player to simply make a better army, because after all, "my fun is playing my effective army."
AoS is designed, at least OOB, to support the OTHER type of player, who would prefer to play two BAD armies than to play their own, meticulously planned, effective army.
I also know social gamers with no draw to AoS. I'm saying that there ARE social gamers with a draw to AoS, not that ALL social gamers are drawn to AoS.
I am not using the term "social gamer" as a positive, and I am not trying to deride any other group. Perhaps it's a bad term. Call it whatever you want, "AoS gamer", then. AoS gamers will be drawn to storytelling, models, and social aspects of gaming; and unlikely to be drawn towards complex aspects that are a draw for WMH gamers. In the context of what I was using, I meant social gamer as an almost exclusively social gamer, not just a gamer who is social, and I'm sorry for using a word that makes it seem like competitive and quasi-competitive gamers can't be social (because obviously, they can!) or that they are anti-social (which most aren't).
I think it's GOOD to have a game designed for another kind of gamer, even if that kind of gamer isn't particularly me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sqorgar wrote: I'm new to the mini-wargaming scene, but I've read a half dozen editorials recently about the "tournament player" versus more social, cooperative players. There is a very real divide in the gaming community between these different mindsets, and at times it feels like a battle for the very soul of wargaming. While I don't think AoS is diametrically opposed to tournament play, by purposely ignoring it, it does make a interesting statement about the type of players it is, at least initially, courting.
To be fair, in the real world, there are a LOT more people in between than Dakka would have you believe
But the nature of the group makes so much of a difference. If you're in a group that is highly competitive, all it takes is for one person to download a netlist and start the path of hyperoptimization, and everyone will do so. If you're in a group that is more casually oriented, such a person is shunned, and doesn't dare bring their netlist again because everyone thinks they are an ass. Or they're warned, "don't be an ass or we'll boot yours".
I think there are plenty of people in my 40k scene who enjoy competing without trying to totally break the rules.
I totally agree with your comment about its draw to the people it courts -- and I generally really like playing with this type of player. At this point in my life, on the tabletop, someone who wants to try different things and have fun with a much smaller emphasis on "who wins" is just a better match for me, as I see the opposite of that better suited for the PC (which I enjoy immensely).
In a filthy casual and I love Warmachine and dislike AOS. Nothing that has been stated as a positive for AOS is unique to it and can be applied to almost every other game.
Its a game for people that don't want to think. I happen to enjoy thinking about my games.
I think that it is more like "how dare you put your cheesy victory above a friendly, enjoyable game". A competitive player, by definition, is selfish.
Define 'cheesy victory'. Define 'friendly enjoyable game'. What is friendly and enjoyable in my mind is tfg cheese to another,
And no, competitive players are not selfish. No more than a lot of casual players whose attitudes boil down to 'how dare the other guy play with cool toys. It's unfair!'
A lot of gamers are selfish, smug, self entitled, self interested and self centred full stop, regardless of where on the spectrum they are. I know competitive tfg's and I know casual at all costs tfg's. All are selfish and want the game to revolve around them.
I'm new to the mini-wargaming scene, but I've read a half dozen editorials recently about the "tournament player" versus more social, cooperative players. There is a very real divide in the gaming community between these different mindsets, and at times it feels like a battle for the very soul of wargaming. While I don't think AoS is diametrically opposed to tournament play, by purposely ignoring it, it does make a interesting statement about the type of players it is, at least initially, courting.
.
And a lot of people's definition of 'tournament player' is akin to A Saturday moning cartoons villain. Lots of projection, exaggeration, hyperbole and myth. I used to think the same thing when I played gw games exclusively. Then I got into games that freely allowed a more competitive slant, (where playing your best wasn't seen as a bad thing, unlike certain sections of the 40k playerbase I encountered where winning is a sin, it's almost implied you have to apologise when you win, and wins should almost be by accident) like WMH, and got into more competitive sports in real life and really 'pushing myself', and I realised 'competitive' isn't the monster it's made out to be by certain sections of the community.
I don't think its a divide personally. It's a different way of doing things. like how I can run marathons. And box. I play competitive games. I play tournaments. Love them. I love havig a whole day of gaming and really pushing it as far as I can. It's also a great way to meet all the folks that travel from hundreds of miles away and embrace the community as a social gathering. I know plenty people that use tournaments as a way to cram as much gaming intoa day as they can, (wife, kids etc) and just to catch up with old friends. I also play social, cooperative games in the vein that aos encourages. Every Friday night. Points limits? Pfft. Book based scenarios? Pfft. It'll always be an interesting scenario, with a gm, a 'fog of war' and armies that are less designed for power and more for 'is it appropriate, given the context of the scenario and the historical/fictional historical narrative and conditions present at that time). In other words, 'typical' armies, rather than power builds.
What it is, more than anything is unfamiliarity with different approaches. Take talys. He gets a lot of flak (some he deserves in my mind, but let's not snipe here...) from a lot of the posters, but I'm pretty certain if any of us would play him, and play his 'style' of games, We'd have an absolute blast. I'm certain if I had a player group like his, I'd still also play 40k In my mind. It's also partly a lack of organisation, a lack of will and a lack of willingness to do anything. A lot of gamers are very lazy. In my experience. Too many would rather sit back and complain on dakka, rather than be proactive and change the games they play, and how they play their games. And to try different ways of doing things. Which feeds into the 'but it's different to how we play, so it's wrong and cannot work' mentality that you see sometimes.
And you are incorrect. I know plenty 'social gamers' that have absolutely no interest in aos.
I'm assuming they aren't hanging around Age of Sigmar forums telling everybody how crap it is, though.
Nope. But we've talked about it in real life over a few beers, and the views are generally negative, but with the caveat that 'it's got value for some, but it's not the type of game I'm interested in'. For me, the great sin of aos is a lack of interesting gsme mechanics.it would have been far more interesting to have been built on gw's lotr engine IMO.
It's no more a strong draw for 'that type' of social gamers as any other game out there. What it is a draw for is people who want a very light, very simple game where you can essentially shuffle things together without thinking to hard.
I don't think AoS is actually that light or simple. There's a 3" radius around every figure that represents an implicit zone of control that can not be entered or crossed by enemy figures (except to charge in and engage in melee). This makes controlling the battlefield through position very possible and very interesting. On a table with a lot of terrain features, how you maneuver your units will absolutely be more important than the number or type of them. But it is not explicitly stated and nowhere in the 4 pages of rules does it even suggest the ramifications of the zone of control. So, it must be a light, simple wargame - like Chess or Go, right?
Chess it is not. lol Well it doesn't sound any different,vor offer anything different to any other wargame that I know, or play to be fair. positioning being important. Ok... Never seen thst before... Terrain and manoeuvre. Ok... Gasp! Why hasn't this been Done?
It also has rules where i wound a dragon as easily as a goblin and where I get a rerollvfor having a beard or making noises.
Now compare it to the intricacies allowed by the details in games like infinity. So yes, it is a light, simple wargame with a very basic engine. This is not a criticism.
I like highly detailed and intricate games like infinity and warmachine.
I play, and enjoy, Warmachine, myself. In fact, I have five armies for it. While I would say that Warmachine is a more complex game than AoS, I'm not sure I would say it is more tactically interesting. Warmachine is largely decided by the armies you use, not really how you use them (since how you use them will also be dictated by the army's make up). Pretty much anything you can do, there are dozen ways to ignore it. Cover? This unit ignores cover. Create a shield wall? This warcaster can cast a spell allowing units to walk right through it. Hide one unit behind another? If it has a bigger base, it can't hide. Each warcaster has some stupidly overpowered feat they can pop which does something like make every nearby unit stationary (and thus automatically hit by melee weapons). And so on. Warmachine is all about building armies which negate your opponent's armies, which makes for tactically uninteresting gameplay. I still love the game though. Just in a different way.
So having a zone of control in aos and terrain you have to manoeuvre around offers 'ramifications' but all the tricks, the depth of plays, and intricate moves you can pull in WMH is not 'tactically interesting'. Ok...
I disagree with the rest. How you use your army is extremely important. It's got less to do with what you take and more with how you use what you take. 'Warmachine is decided by the army you use, but not how you use them, because how you use them depends on what you take'. Um, what? This makes no sense. Armies don't play themselves.
If you are trying to say,it's about how you use the tools you've brought with you to the best effect, ie how you use what you take is extremely important, then you are actually saying the exact opposite of what you claim you are saying.
'Warmachine is about building armies which negate your opponents armies, which makes for tactically uninteresting gameplay'. Except that's the whole bloody point. And no,vits not uninteresting. You have to play it right. It's called clever play. You know -using clever tactics and abilities,vpositioning and unit resources to confound, outmanoevre, engage and eliminate your opponents pieces in a wargame and all the time, he's trying to do the same to you, and deny you yours? you call this uninteresting? How else are you going to take them on and best them, if not use every tool at your disposal the best way you can? It's not like these are also similar to features in every other wargame out there. What utter rubbish.
Feats are stupidly overpowered? thats their point bud. As for sorscha's feat - it's fun, but come on mate. There's ways to mitigate it.
And How is it 'tactically uninteresting' when there are counters to your plays? Heaven forbid your opponent can actually do something, and counter your tricks,cand bring some of his own, and you can't just take things for granted, and it's not just an easy mode jaunt for you where you can go round lolstomping and your opponent has no game to your uncounterable trick. The thing with WMH is there is no master trick that you can rely on or hide behind. There is no ultimate weapon or perfect plan, There is no immunity: opppnent. Ultimately, someone can get through it.
I do agree that Warmachine players are more interested in the complexity of the game itself, which is why so few of them appear to fully engage the hobby. I have a group of about 8-10 people I play Warmachine with every weekend, and I'm the only one with painted figures. They also play without any notable terrain, outside of a token forest area that they never actually go into and instead "toe" the edge to gain the bonuses without having to put up with the drawbacks. Actually, that makes a good metaphor for Warmachine players. They just "toe" the hobby.
Uh huh. Keep projecting. All my models are painted and most of the people I play against paint extremely well and enjoy conversions.
I've got a go to list of awesome conversions I'm tempted to post here. It's a lie thst WMH players don't fully engage the hobby. Plenty do. And I know plenty 40k players thst never plsy with anything more than 'grey legions'. Take home message: it's not a WMH thing. It's a lazy gamer thing.
In my local scene (which is very competitive), Haley and primarily stormguard/blades would get stomped. Like, 9/10 games. Of course, 75%+ of lists being hypercompetitive in the extreme in WMH here, doesn't help (but that, along with 75% unpainted armies plus 20% crappy painted armies and 0% nice terrain tables is a reason I'm not crazy about pickup WMH games). I don't know about your scene but the pickup scene here for WMH really exemplifies Win at All Costs -- and most people aren't brilliant strategists; they just know how to go to PP's forums and buy the lists that are most complained about at any given time. Not that I've been to a ton of WMH nights, and not that I've even played WMH in a very long time. They're just things I've wandered into here and there because I happened to be at the store, and watched for fun.
So basically. Yet again you are projecting 'your limited experiences of your local scene' onto the WMH playerbase as a whole.
But that wasn't my point -- I was only using those models for an example. Again, in AoS you can pick ANY models, and the rules even encourage you to (I mean, it actually says this in the rules!).
But I can't pick 'any' models because it entirely depends on the other guy on the other side of the board enabling me by saying 'yes, I will play that!' That I can pick 'any' model and play with it falls down the second the other guy says 'no'. Which is the point you have yet to accept and acknowledge. And yet again, tangents..
Enabler comment -- your word, not mine. I don't think I took it out of the context that you used it, and I AGREE. You think that some players feel that a player that will dumb down their army to the lowest common denominator of their opponent is enabling them to play with a crappy army. I'm sure many people feel this way, and would prefer to encourage the other player to simply make a better army, because after all, "my fun is playing my effective army."
It was the point you were trying to twist, not the word.
Enable = 'yes I will play that'. Is a requirement for a game where, as you claim 'allows you to play anything'. You need an opponent to say 'yes'. When they don't. You don't get to play with your toys. Which goes directly against the idea of being able to play 'anything' as you claimed. Which is the point you have yet to accept or acknowledge.
And tangents. I'm not talking about dumbing down to the lowest common denominator. I'm talking about tfg opponents who will complain about any nice toys you bring. Who will only let you play 'bad' stuff, rather than 'similar' stuff. Because it's 'fair'.
AoS is designed, at least OOB, to support the OTHER type of player, who would prefer to play two BAD armies than to play their own, meticulously planned, effective army.
Which is all well and good, until you get an opponent who would prefer you to play a 'worse' army instead of a similarly 'bad' army. Casual at all costs, remember.
I also know social gamers with no draw to AoS. I'm saying that there ARE social gamers with a draw to AoS, not that ALL social gamers are drawn to AoS.
You kind of impliesd just that though talys.
So then how is it that it's a strong draw to 'that type' of gamer (your words) when both you, and I, and probably everyone else knows 'social gamers' that have no draw to aos. So your point is moot.
I am not using the term "social gamer" as a positive, and I am not trying to deride any other group. Perhaps it's a bad term. Call it whatever you want, "AoS gamer", then. AoS gamers will be drawn to storytelling, models, and social aspects of gaming; and unlikely to be drawn towards complex aspects that are a draw for WMH gamers. In the context of what I was using, I meant social gamer as an almost exclusively social gamer, not just a gamer who is social, and I'm sorry for using a word that makes it seem like competitive and quasi-competitive gamers can't be social (because obviously, they can!) or that they are anti-social (which most aren't).
Then think about the words you use and say what you mean and don't just pluck random words from the air that are open to all sorts of interpretations.
Pretty much disagree with everything the OP said, particularly about the 'tactical' side of the game. Unit synergy is all well and good when well thought out and intended [see Malifaux and Warmachine], but I watched a batrep yesterday where a unit of ogres were causing a mortal wound to the attacking unit whenever they rolled a save of 4+, due to cover and stacking buffs. That smacks of lazy design.
If you want to play a game where there is a big scrum in the middle and you roll lots and lots of dice trying to get 3s and 4s then that's up to you. I'm a very casual player but would much rather play a game with a tight, balanced, well thought out ruleset such as Infinity than wasting my time on this gak. 'Casual' doesn't mean I don't also appreciate the tactical side of games, which is a distinction many seem to be missing. Tactics can be fun too. Rolling lots of dice isn't fun to me.
Granted, WHFB had its flaws and needed a complete overhaul but they came up with a turd, which I am sure will die a slow death over the next year or so. Glad the OP mentioned Space Hulk as if I wanted a 'casual', 'fun' game I would much rather play that.
For me, the great sin of aos is a lack of interesting gsme mechanics.
This is, in fact, the first thing I'm looking for in board/miniature games. DzC, for example, which I think is an excellent game, would be just another generic move & pew pew game were it not for the battlegroup activation and transports(coupled with relatively slow units). These are the two things I think make DzC pop out from the crowd. The only mechanic in AoS I see as a little more different is the alternating CC combat in the melee phase. Time will tell if it is interesting enough on itself, will it be extrapolated more and if the game can forge a distinctive look based on it.
AoS is a toolbox eh? *opens up an 8th ed army book consisting of a variety of units, characters and magic items with point costs allowing you to build a variety of forces.*
8th looks like a toolbox to me... infact any wargame with a variety of units and deployment options is a 'tool box.'
I hate Warmachine to the guts, the artwork the models and the type of gameplay. I would sooner buy a hundred copies of the same sigmarine and paint them gold, wash them gold, drybrush them gold and highlight them gold than buy a single warjack. And I loathe sigmarines.
But saying AoS is more tactical or a better game is ridiculous.
Anyway, just some rambling thoughts that are purely my own, and not intended to hurt anyone...
When Age of Sigmar first hit the shelves, there was a great deal of hand-wringing/arguments and general Internet-based attacks on the game and those happy to dive into it. Things seem to be settling down now, so I will venture this post forward; why I think it might be worth people taking a second look at the game and, if they have already adopted it, what else they can be doing with it.
So, warning: this is a pro-Age of Sigmar post!
Caveat: I know that you can do whatever you like with whatever set of rules you have. I know that. However, rules systems by their nature encourage you to act one way or another on the tabletop, and it is the natural tendencies of Age of Sigmar that I will be addressing.
Second Caveat: I am not saying everyone should play the games the way I do (in fact, it is probably better if some don't!). All I am saying is 'here is another angle, why not roll it around in your head for a bit?' If you don't like what comes out after that and you are happy playing the games you are playing, just ignore me!
It is Not Too Simple... Just four pages of rules? Well, that obviously has to be a game for kids, right? No adult could be challenged by just four pages of rules...
Umm, wrong.
As a full-time games designer, I can tell you that any idiot can make a huge, sprawling complex mess of a rules system. It is simplifying and streamlining rules that takes work. A lot of work. Two great examples of this would be Blood Bowl and Space Hulk - nice simple games, but not without their challenges.
What matters is the interplay between the mechanics and the involvement of players within that framework. But the rules sheet is not the full story. In fact, it is not even the game.
The rules sheet is just the jumping off point. The actual game is to be found in the Warscrolls and, especially, the Battlescrolls; there is more (much more) to this game than four pages. So, if you have looked over the rules sheet and thought there is not too much to get your teeth into - you would be right! However, you are looking at just the absolute core, not the full game. Imagine if someone had just shown you the to hit and wound tables in Fantasy Battle and the first page of the movement phase. There is obviously a lot more to the game, but that core material is pretty simple.
Also, consider this: by making the core material short, simple and (relatively) flat, GW now have the ability to update virtually any aspect of their game, at any time. This, incidentally, means the end of edition updates. They do not even need to update an army book - simply release a new Warscroll or revise an existing one...
Oh, and one more thing to be said - I was watching a couple of Youtube rants last night where a couple of gentlemen were constantly berating Age of Sigmar being aimed at kids. Really hate to burst anyone's bubble, but all Warhammer games are aimed at kids. If you don't think a 12 year old can get his head round Fantasy Battle in any edition then a) you are doing the kid a big dis-service and b) maybe, just maybe, you are forgetting the games you played when you were a teenager.
Let's not kid ourselves, we are playing with toy soldiers.
At the end of the day, what a four page rules system gives you is the ability to play the game rather than the rules. In other words, you will be worrying about whether your unit of Liberators will be able to withstand a third wave of Bloodreavers, rather than trying to work out whether a reform will put them those few millimetres out of the enemy charge arc.
... And There Are Plenty of Tactics Age of Sigmar is no less tactical than Fantasy Battle.
Now, I will qualify that.
In Fantasy Battle, deployment is paramount and the ability to think two, three or four turns ahead is vital - you need to know where each unit is likely to be (or needs to be) and manoeuvre appropriately. In 40k, this is important and a distinct advantage - though maybe a little less than in Fantasy Battle.
Age of Sigmar, with the relative mobility of units does tend more to the 40k side of things. However, tactics are not to be found in movement alone.
What is also of great importance is how units support one another or, as people often put it, the synergy between units. A unit of Dark Reapers is good. A unit of Dark Reapers with Guide on them and Doom on their target is positively lethal.
This is what Age of Sigmar brings to the table in lumps. Almost every unit in every force fits into a greater jigsaw puzzle in some way, and there are many hours to be had in figuring out the best way to do that. And when you have done that, start again, because there are so many other combinations.
Eldar in 40k (and, I would say, Elves in Fantasy Battle) work best when you get the right unit into the right place at the right time to face the right opponent. This is the central ethos, if you will, behind those forces, while other armies do similar things to perhaps lesser degrees. In Age of Sigmar, getting units to work together is paramount.
Combine the elements of unit mobility and unit synergy, and you have a very, very tactical game on your hands with a host of choices every turn.
Stress Relief the First This is a big one for me and, from some posts I have seen on various forums, I am not alone in this.
There is no 'stress' in Age of Sigmar - and this runs on two levels. First, I have not had one rules debate/argument/someone trying to push rules way too far at all in Age of Sigmar. Not one. Everyone understands the rules and just gets on with it. Any ambiguity in the rules set is so minor as to not be a factor (a caveat here - don't try to carry Fantasy Battle conventions with you, as you will run into trouble).
Fantasy Battle is a good rules set (and I should point out that my group is not only currently engaged in a long-running Fantasy Battle campaign, but we are about to start a brand new one - go High Elves!), but it is also a big, sprawling one. Not everyone remembers all the rules all the time, so it is not uncommon to briefly halt a game to look up or clarify some obscure part of the movement phase (it is almost always the movement phase). This causes pauses, interpretations and the occasional argument.
In Age of Sigmar, players have the core rules memorised within two or three games. Give it another two or three games to get that 'locked' in your head, and not only will you never need to go back to the rules again, there will be no rules debating during the game.
Stress Relief the Second The other side of the stress removal is the absence of points. Now, I have played all sorts of games over the past (gulp) few decades, but Warhammer-based games have always featured heavily. As time went on beyond the first editions, this meant points-based games and that meant competition.
Which was fair enough.
However, coming back to a no-points game has been something of a revelation, like you remember something you had once forgotten.
Points-based games mean competition. They encourage it. When you put together a Fantasy Battle force (or 40k, just as guilty), you are trying to put together an army, you will have a tendency to avoid certain units because, for whatever reason, they are not going to work out for you. I am not talking about sub-optimal units (we all include those in our forces) but the ones that you think are just plain bad. You want to put together a decent army that has a reasonable chance of winning, so you want to pick units that will help you do that.
And then (and this is crucial) when you play and lose with such an army, there is a feeling of disappointment, perhaps even failure - the sides were perfectly (yeah, I know) matched and you lost. You got it wrong. You cocked it up.
Age of Sigmar does away with points and, with them, the stress or 'need' to win.
Putting it another way, if you play Age of Sigmar, you will live longer!
Note: I like competitive gaming. I am good at it. But I like this game where the competitiveness is greatly muted.
Field What You Want This is related to the no-points angle, and it has also been raised on various forums.
In both Fantasy Battle and 40k, there are some very nice models that you may want (or already have) for your army but that will never, ever see any table time because the rules for them are just bad. Wyches for Dark Eldar, for example. Storm Guardians in Craftworld Eldar forces (I actually disagree with that, but perceived wisdom and all that). Medusae for Dark Elves. Some people even put Tactical Marines into this category, but I strongly disagree there...
It might get even worse when your army book gets updated and a unit that you once loved to used as been emasculated to the point where you can no longer bring it in a regular force.
With no points-based gaming, that does not matter. You want a wing of Warhawk Riders because you think they look stunning? Bring them along, there really is no downside.
In fact, if you you see a box of models sitting on the shop shelf that you quite fancy, you can now grab it, paint it, and put it straight onto the table without having to worry about its effectiveness or, crucially, without feeling the need to paint up another fifteen near-identical box sets to field a whole force.
Okay, that last might be a stretch. We are hobbyists after all...
Do Scenarios, Not Points Right, first thing here - there is no proper (and no wrong!) way to play any game, so long as you are having fun. There are no units of Gaming Police getting ready to break down your door because you converted Warhammer to a D10 system or whatever.
However, if you have just grabbed a bunch of Warscrolls and used the four page rules sheet, you might have done it wrong
Put another way, if you did that and did not have fun, then clearly something was wrong. But it may not just be the rules that let you down.
I could harp on about narrative but, fundamentally, Age of Sigmar is about a story. You have the wider story of Sigmar's Crusade, and there will be much more to come in campaign books and via the Black Library in the future. However, it is also a story about your army and what it is doing - either in the context of just a single battle or a whole campaign.
What this boils down to is forget playing with just the 4 page rules sheet and nothing else. Forget the various points-based balancing systems that are floating around (though that Laws of War does look pretty good at first glance!).
Pick a scenario from the hardback. Come up with a quick one or two sentence reason of why your army is taking part and why the enemy is your enemy. Perhaps go as far as deciding who the attacker is and who takes the role of defender before you start.
Next, come up with a reasonable force that you could see fighting it.
That is about all you need to do. Leave Tyrion, Archaon and Nagash at home, save them for the really special scenarios. Don't be a dick about the forces you pick. Just choose the units you think your commander in the field would really have at his disposal.
Then play.
If you do all that, you will have given Age of Sigmar a decent try. Maybe it is not for you. Maybe, if you had a disagreeable game, it was for you but not for your opponent. In which case try again.
But do try it. Scenarios (Battlescrolls) is where Age of Sigmar sits.
Incidentally, if it does work out for you, pick another scenario and play with similar (or even the same) force, and figure out how the two battles are linked. Then do the same after that game - before long, you will not only have a campaign running, you will have named your characters and they might even have started to develop personalities. If you are writing brand new scenarios to fit in with your storyline, you have nailed it.
A Different Class of Player Now, this bit could start an argument, but please bear with me.
I am not running anyone down here, nor am I attacking any style of play.
But.
Competitive (in this context, points-based) games attract That Guy. 90% of gamers are not that guy but, as a society, we always have to cater to the 10%.
That Guy wants to win, and is usually a bit of a dick about it, whether it is in attitude, rules-lawyering or army selection. When we do points-based games, we may meet That Guy. We may even, if we are truly honest, be That Guy for brief moments.
Age of Sigmar does not really encourage That Guy. There is little in Age of Sigmar that welcomes That Guy. That Guy may not look twice at Age of Sigmar.
Which is good news for the rest of us!
Basically, I am saying that when you play Age of Sigmar, you may have a better chance to play against people who just want to push some models around the table and maybe continue the story of their great warband and its leader. You may never meet That Guy.
This is not to say, of course, that you cannot do both styles of gaming. You can still play Warhammer Fantasy and Age of Sigmar.
I am...
You just bring a different style of play to both.
But... Sigmarines! But are GW not just trying to bring about a Fantasy style of 40k? Are the Hammers of Sigmar not just Ultramarines by another name?
Well, you can draw all sorts of parallels. At the end of the day it is still Warhammer: Age of Sigmar, and will still retain the look, feel and polish of other Warhammer games.
And yes, GW will push the Stormcast Eternals forward ahead of everything else because they bring the Awesome (YMMV, of course, but that is why other armies exist...).
However, this new background is only just starting. Think back to 1st edition Fantasy Battle or 40k, and how sparse things were then and, importantly, how they were built upon. You cannot, as a writer, just magically create a whole living, breathing universe. Like a fine wine, it takes time for a setting to fully awaken.
However, keep an eye on what GW brings out, in terms of background, over the next few months. They obviously have plans in this direction, for both characters and events.
The book in the starter set is really just a primer. The hardback adds a little more (the most fluff is in the scenarios section - read and play the scenarios!). Keep an eye on White Dwarf, as those articles are bringing to light aspects of the background that the books have not really touched upon yet. Read the Black Library novels and shorts - these, above all else, are bringing the setting to life at the moment.
And keep an eye on the range of hardbacks that start this week - if you are expecting huge blocks of rules and units, I think you may be disappointed. I think these books will be more about the storyline and scenarios (both in print and encouraging you to make up your own), and this will be where the heart of Age of Sigmar will lie. Not on the latest, greatest Codex and its killer units, but on the next stage of the story and how it can be played out on your table.
And what if you are not keen on the story? Well, there seems to be three main story lines being pushed right now (in three different realms) giving you three separate, though related, campaigns. And if they do not get you going - make up your own.
That, perhaps, is the real aim of Age of Sigmar.
We Ain't Seen it All Yet It really is okay to say 'I don't know.' It is also okay to say 'I am not sure about Age of Sigmar right now, I think I will wait.'
That may be the most sensible route between diving headlong into a new game and completely rejecting it out of hand (and playing just a couple of games with the four page rules sheet alone is still out of hand...).
The reason is that, aside from a few people at GWHQ, no one really knows yet what Age of Sigmar is going to be. Given what I know of GW though, we have not yet seen a fraction of what this game is going to be able to do. Big long campaigns? Siege rules? Gods on the battlefield? Underground warfare with interchangeable tiles to make new caverns and caves?
We just don't know.
For my part, I am quite excited at the idea of a (near) clean slate, of being able to explore the setting as it develops without the huge weight of baggage the Old World had (remember, I am still exploring the Old World, in both Fantasy Battle and Fantasy Roleplay, this does not have to be a binary choice!). I even changed my style of painting for the new game, though that might be going too far for some!
I guess what I am trying to say in a very long-winded manner is this.
* If you tried Age of Sigmar and have bought into the story-led, scenario-driven idea of gaming, great! I want you in my group!
* If you tried Age of Sigmar but thought it too simple, light or lacklustre, give it just one more try with the ideas above - there may be a little more to this game than was first shown to you.
* You do not need to choose between Fantasy Battle and Age of Sigmar, or competitive gaming and narrative gaming - you can do both. These games scratch different itches.
* You do not need to make your mind up yet. Check back in a while, maybe at the start of the New Year. There might be something in Age of Sigmar by that point that catches your imagination. Or maybe not.
No
In future, don't quote huge things and then have a one word answer. That's very spammy, motyak
Deadnight wrote: Define 'cheesy victory'. Define 'friendly enjoyable game'. What is friendly and enjoyable in my mind is tfg cheese to another,
Any tactic or army composition which uses extreme edge cases in order to exploit loopholes in the rules in order to win an easy victory at the cost of playing a friendly, enjoyable game in the manner to which it was designed.
Basically, draw a Venn diagram. Two circles. One circle is everything that makes up a friendly, enjoyable game (the casual view). The other circle is everything that can be done to win the game (the competitive view). The intersection of the two circles is where people have fun together. But many competitive gamers expect the casual gamers to utilize the entire winning circle at all times (even when it is not what they want), and have no trouble playing outside of the "fun intersection" to win games against opponents who want to stay within it.
And a lot of people's definition of 'tournament player' is akin to A Saturday moning cartoons villain. Lots of projection, exaggeration, hyperbole and myth.
I used to think it was exaggerated too, but then I remembered that I've actually played games (not mini games, but card and board games) against these kinds of players. I don't think every "tournament player" is a goblin, and I think these goblins are more amalgamations than actual people, but those tendencies are real, and there's no doubt that some players are more goblin than not.
I think a competitive player can play another competitive player and have a great, friendly game. I don't think a competitive player can carry that same attitude into games with anybody else without there being friction, and I see that in the various mini wargaming communities I visit - even Warmachine. There was a thread in the PP forums recently about how the emphasis on tournament tendencies was potentially driving away players and creating a barrier of entry for new ones. I believe the thread was called something like "Dwindling players".
Again, there is nothing wrong with being competitive - when it is appropriate. But it is not always appropriate, and there are certain attitudes which are, if you'll excuse the term, toxic to the well being of the community. I think competitive players have a... let's call it "aggressive" way of expressing themselves, which makes them dominate discussions and communities, making their way the dominant concern of the game makers (or complaining VERY loudly and frequently, when their concerns are NOT the main concern, such as every Age of Sigmar thread ever). Seriously, competitive gamers are the only ones who will tell everyone within earshot how they are leaving the game for another one because a stat is slightly different than what they'd prefer.
I don't think its a divide personally. It's a different way of doing things. like how I can run marathons.
It is a different way of doing things, and in appropriate places, it is well met. I actually like playing competitive players, when I'm feeling sufficiently competitive, because I also enjoy that aspect of gaming. It's one of the reasons I like Warmachine. But there are times when competitive players are not cooperative, and their desires for the future of a game don't mesh with mine, and the resulting discussions end up less than civil.
In my mind. It's also partly a lack of organisation, a lack of will and a lack of willingness to do anything. A lot of gamers are very lazy. In my experience. Too many would rather sit back and complain on dakka, rather than be proactive and change the games they play, and how they play their games. And to try different ways of doing things. Which feeds into the 'but it's different to how we play, so it's wrong and cannot work' mentality that you see sometimes.
This comment fits in perfectly with my previous one. While your way of playing is okay and simply different, those who play in a manner unlike yours are lazy and lack willingness to try new things. They are wrong, while you are simply choosing a different approach. In a way, competitive players are like the conservatives of the gaming world. They believe that if you are not having fun, it is your fault because you didn't step up. You are poor because you want to be poor, and thus you deserve it. It's karma. But it could be that competitive gamers are the ones not willing to try new things, and their inability to play anything but competitive games at their peak proficiency is what makes the game feel lacking.
Well it doesn't sound any different,vor offer anything different to any other wargame that I know, or play to be fair. positioning being important. Ok... Never seen thst before... Terrain and manoeuvre. Ok... Gasp! Why hasn't this been Done?
I'm not aware of many wargames in which you can literally not move near opponents. Even charges can fail when you roll ones. This makes positioning a dominant strategy of area control - in a way, the units become moving, impassable terrain that you can use to shape the battlefield, and the ONLY way to pass them is to engage them in battle to remove them altogether. I think a lot of players, yourself included, are greatly underestimating how much the zone of control around models changes how the battles must be fought.
As this is already quite long, and this isn't a WMH thread, I'm going to skip commenting on that part. Let's just agree to disagree on that matter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plumbumbarum wrote: I hate Warmachine to the guts, the artwork the models and the type of gameplay. I would sooner buy a hundred copies of the same sigmarine and paint them gold, wash them gold, drybrush them gold and highlight them gold than buy a single warjack. And I loathe sigmarines.
But saying AoS is more tactical or a better game is ridiculous.
Not to mention comparisions to chess. Jesus.
I didn't say that AoS was the better game. Warmachine has been around over a decade, with ten different factions (not including the various mercenary mini-factions) and has had at least one major revision of the rules to address deficiencies. AoS has a long way to go before it can compare. And unlike you, I love the Warjacks (just wish they were actually worthwhile in the game that is literally named after them).
I said AoS was more tactically interesting because the movement was more fundamental and impactful. WMH has very little maneuvering, as evidenced by the typical WMH player's irrational hate of using terrain. In fact, if you removed all movement from the game and just had two lines of figures fighting it out, Final Fantasy style, I'm not sure the game would be all that different.
The comparison was more intended to be Go, but I didn't think it was familiar enough and threw Chess in there as well. Go is a game about area control, where you win through position, not conflict. Chess is also a game of positioning where you can use threat ranges to control the field.
Finally, you can paint the Stormcast teal, if you want. I believe they are the angry ones (no doubt angry at being teal).
What killed AoS for me is my inability to utilize real world tactics; my undergrad work was in history with a focus on ancient Europe so I read a great deal of battle accounts. I could use these ancient (and sometimes more modern) tactics in WHFB allowing me to play historics but with Ogres (Ogre's make everything better).
AoS severely hampers my ability and has no flexibility for me to create a, in my mind, tactically valid force. The reason is that I need the tacit approval of my opponent to place units and it forces me to be "sensitive" to what models they bring to the table. I might have a force of Ogre "legionnaires" in mind with gnobblar auxiliary support and pincer wings of mournfangs but show up to play and the opponent I happen meet wrecks this by not placing enough forces to be competitive against my concept force. My fun is ruined and if I go ahead an place what I have in mind, his fun is ruined.
Where AoS fails to me is the required, unmoderated social contract that has to be negotiated either formally or informally before a game can even start. Yes, wargames are social in nature but where a points system excels is that everyone can show up with a 2000 point army and kind of know what to expect from everyone else; you can't do this with AoS out of the box and only if you create or use one of the unofficial comp systems. Rules moderate the social contract by pre-determining how much of a force you can bring (I'm not going to tote around my entire 10,000 pt force so that I can adjust on the fly for whoever I face).
There is no tactical depth. People can talk about zones of control like it's a new concept and didn't exist in 8th edition or TFGs. I never play tournaments but that doesn't mean I don't want a challenging game that I have the possibility to win or lose; it also doesn't mean that I don't want any direction at all in how to play the game. In my mind, a well-designed, clear ruleset benefits all players of any play-style. I don't like WM/H but I've always been impressed by how dynamic the rules are and the effort that PP puts into game balance.
I know AoS was created by people who play games entirely different to how most of us do but that's no excuse for making something so unfriendly to the majority of your current consumer base. Who knows, maybe in the future they'll find enough people who like this style of play, it's just not me.
Deadnight wrote: Define 'cheesy victory'. Define 'friendly enjoyable game'. What is friendly and enjoyable in my mind is tfg cheese to another,
Any tactic or army composition which uses extreme edge cases in order to exploit loopholes in the rules in order to win an easy victory at the cost of playing a friendly, enjoyable game in the manner to which it was designed.
Basically, draw a Venn diagram. Two circles. One circle is everything that makes up a friendly, enjoyable game (the casual view). The other circle is everything that can be done to win the game (the competitive view). The intersection of the two circles is where people have fun together. But many competitive gamers expect the casual gamers to utilize the entire winning circle at all times (even when it is not what they want), and have no trouble playing outside of the "fun intersection" to win games against opponents who want to stay within it.
And a lot of people's definition of 'tournament player' is akin to A Saturday moning cartoons villain. Lots of projection, exaggeration, hyperbole and myth.
I used to think it was exaggerated too, but then I remembered that I've actually played games (not mini games, but card and board games) against these kinds of players. I don't think every "tournament player" is a goblin, and I think these goblins are more amalgamations than actual people, but those tendencies are real, and there's no doubt that some players are more goblin than not.
I think a competitive player can play another competitive player and have a great, friendly game. I don't think a competitive player can carry that same attitude into games with anybody else without there being friction, and I see that in the various mini wargaming communities I visit - even Warmachine. There was a thread in the PP forums recently about how the emphasis on tournament tendencies was potentially driving away players and creating a barrier of entry for new ones. I believe the thread was called something like "Dwindling players".
Again, there is nothing wrong with being competitive - when it is appropriate. But it is not always appropriate, and there are certain attitudes which are, if you'll excuse the term, toxic to the well being of the community. I think competitive players have a... let's call it "aggressive" way of expressing themselves, which makes them dominate discussions and communities, making their way the dominant concern of the game makers (or complaining VERY loudly and frequently, when their concerns are NOT the main concern, such as every Age of Sigmar thread ever). Seriously, competitive gamers are the only ones who will tell everyone within earshot how they are leaving the game for another one because a stat is slightly different than what they'd prefer.
I don't think its a divide personally. It's a different way of doing things. like how I can run marathons.
It is a different way of doing things, and in appropriate places, it is well met. I actually like playing competitive players, when I'm feeling sufficiently competitive, because I also enjoy that aspect of gaming. It's one of the reasons I like Warmachine. But there are times when competitive players are not cooperative, and their desires for the future of a game don't mesh with mine, and the resulting discussions end up less than civil.
In my mind. It's also partly a lack of organisation, a lack of will and a lack of willingness to do anything. A lot of gamers are very lazy. In my experience. Too many would rather sit back and complain on dakka, rather than be proactive and change the games they play, and how they play their games. And to try different ways of doing things. Which feeds into the 'but it's different to how we play, so it's wrong and cannot work' mentality that you see sometimes.
This comment fits in perfectly with my previous one. While your way of playing is okay and simply different, those who play in a manner unlike yours are lazy and lack willingness to try new things. They are wrong, while you are simply choosing a different approach. In a way, competitive players are like the conservatives of the gaming world. They believe that if you are not having fun, it is your fault because you didn't step up. You are poor because you want to be poor, and thus you deserve it. It's karma. But it could be that competitive gamers are the ones not willing to try new things, and their inability to play anything but competitive games at their peak proficiency is what makes the game feel lacking.
Well it doesn't sound any different,vor offer anything different to any other wargame that I know, or play to be fair. positioning being important. Ok... Never seen thst before... Terrain and manoeuvre. Ok... Gasp! Why hasn't this been Done?
I'm not aware of many wargames in which you can literally not move near opponents. Even charges can fail when you roll ones. This makes positioning a dominant strategy of area control - in a way, the units become moving, impassable terrain that you can use to shape the battlefield, and the ONLY way to pass them is to engage them in battle to remove them altogether. I think a lot of players, yourself included, are greatly underestimating how much the zone of control around models changes how the battles must be fought.
As this is already quite long, and this isn't a WMH thread, I'm going to skip commenting on that part. Let's just agree to disagree on that matter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plumbumbarum wrote: I hate Warmachine to the guts, the artwork the models and the type of gameplay. I would sooner buy a hundred copies of the same sigmarine and paint them gold, wash them gold, drybrush them gold and highlight them gold than buy a single warjack. And I loathe sigmarines.
But saying AoS is more tactical or a better game is ridiculous.
Not to mention comparisions to chess. Jesus.
I didn't say that AoS was the better game. Warmachine has been around over a decade, with ten different factions (not including the various mercenary mini-factions) and has had at least one major revision of the rules to address deficiencies. AoS has a long way to go before it can compare. And unlike you, I love the Warjacks (just wish they were actually worthwhile in the game that is literally named after them).
I said AoS was more tactically interesting because the movement was more fundamental and impactful. WMH has very little maneuvering, as evidenced by the typical WMH player's irrational hate of using terrain. In fact, if you removed all movement from the game and just had two lines of figures fighting it out, Final Fantasy style, I'm not sure the game would be all that different.
The comparison was more intended to be Go, but I didn't think it was familiar enough and threw Chess in there as well. Go is a game about area control, where you win through position, not conflict. Chess is also a game of positioning where you can use threat ranges to control the field.
Finally, you can paint the Stormcast teal, if you want. I believe they are the angry ones (no doubt angry at being teal).
I was a part of that thread and it was basically one botter guy being told he was wrong.
agnosto wrote: What killed AoS for me is my inability to utilize real world tactics;
Yes, I agree. I feel AoS models wizards and goblins riding on the backs of giant spiders all wrong compared to how they existed in history.
AoS severely hampers my ability and has no flexibility for me to create a, in my mind, tactically valid force. The reason is that I need the tacit approval of my opponent to place units and it forces me to be "sensitive" to what models they bring to the table. I might have a force of Ogre "legionnaires" in mind with gnobblar auxiliary support and pincer wings of mournfangs but show up to play and the opponent I happen meet wrecks this by not placing enough forces to be competitive against my concept force. My fun is ruined and if I go ahead an place what I have in mind, his fun is ruined.
Isn't that just you being selfish though? Maybe there are people out there that play in the manner that you would like... but does every game have to be that way? Is your fun really ruined when you have to occasionally play the game differently when playing against a new opponent? I mean really? Is it really ruined? Your fun? Ruined? Just going to spend the rest of the day sitting in a corner, pouting, because some donkey-cave had the unmitigated GALL to want to play a game with you? What a jerk!
Think of it like dating. When you first meet, you may have to do things you aren't interested in, like going roller skating. But if you have fun, you can keep seeing each other. And by the third date, you should be comfortable enough with your partner to start asking for the things you really want. You know, the kinky stuff.
There is no tactical depth. People can talk about zones of control like it's a new concept and didn't exist in 8th edition or TFGs.
I didn't say it was new. I said it was fundamental, as in the rules are built around it. Literally. The majority of the rules are about movement up to (but not into) this zone, that you must flee to escape the zone, that you charge into the zone, about starting in this zone to begin combat, about piling in exactly the same length as the zone's radius, and probably other rules I've forgotten about. Pretty much every rule on page 3 is about this 3" zone directly or indirectly.
I also said that its ramifications are not immediately obvious. The rules are built around this zone of control, but they never explicitly say, "hey guy, this model exerts undue influence in the 3" area immediately surrounding it, allowing it to do X, Y, and Z. Relax, guy. Take a load off."
I know AoS was created by people who play games entirely different to how most of us do but that's no excuse for making something so unfriendly to the majority of your current consumer base.
I'm coming to the conclusion that peace talks in the Middle East must be a breeze in comparison to AoS discussion threads.
You'll never get a 'statement' from GW on the subject, but it is pretty clear that AoS is not intended to be balanced/competitive in any way beyond enjoyable social agreement.
I could post countless videos and articles about how bad farming animals is, how destructive to the environment and people's health, yadda yadda. Then mix it with videos and articles about the latest offering from Arby's, how to cook a steak perfectly, the amount of protein bodybuilders eat, etc.
In all seriousness, how many people will change their opinion or attitude based on all that?
People who say the game has no depth - I disagree, but I know you'll never allow yourself to be shown otherwise.
People who say it's impossible to play without nerfing yourself - again, no-one will ever convince you otherwise.
Wargaming is a hobby. You should enjoy it. Do not belittle people for what they enjoy, or you're the same as every teenage pinhead who ever banged on the window of a GW and shouted "NERDS!".
Can we move WFB to the 'unsupported GW games' section now?
agnosto wrote: What killed AoS for me is my inability to utilize real world tactics;
Yes, I agree. I feel AoS models wizards and goblins riding on the backs of giant spiders all wrong compared to how they existed in history.
AoS severely hampers my ability and has no flexibility for me to create a, in my mind, tactically valid force. The reason is that I need the tacit approval of my opponent to place units and it forces me to be "sensitive" to what models they bring to the table. I might have a force of Ogre "legionnaires" in mind with gnobblar auxiliary support and pincer wings of mournfangs but show up to play and the opponent I happen meet wrecks this by not placing enough forces to be competitive against my concept force. My fun is ruined and if I go ahead an place what I have in mind, his fun is ruined.
Isn't that just you being selfish though? Maybe there are people out there that play in the manner that you would like... but does every game have to be that way? Is your fun really ruined when you have to occasionally play the game differently when playing against a new opponent? I mean really? Is it really ruined? Your fun? Ruined? Just going to spend the rest of the day sitting in a corner, pouting, because some donkey-cave had the unmitigated GALL to want to play a game with you? What a jerk!
Think of it like dating. When you first meet, you may have to do things you aren't interested in, like going roller skating. But if you have fun, you can keep seeing each other. And by the third date, you should be comfortable enough with your partner to start asking for the things you really want. You know, the kinky stuff.
There is no tactical depth. People can talk about zones of control like it's a new concept and didn't exist in 8th edition or TFGs.
I didn't say it was new. I said it was fundamental, as in the rules are built around it. Literally. The majority of the rules are about movement up to (but not into) this zone, that you must flee to escape the zone, that you charge into the zone, about starting in this zone to begin combat, about piling in exactly the same length as the zone's radius, and probably other rules I've forgotten about. Pretty much every rule on page 3 is about this 3" zone directly or indirectly.
I also said that its ramifications are not immediately obvious. The rules are built around this zone of control, but they never explicitly say, "hey guy, this model exerts undue influence in the 3" area immediately surrounding it, allowing it to do X, Y, and Z. Relax, guy. Take a load off."
I know AoS was created by people who play games entirely different to how most of us do but that's no excuse for making something so unfriendly to the majority of your current consumer base.
agnosto wrote: I know AoS was created by people who play games entirely different to how most of us do but that's no excuse for making something so unfriendly to the majority of your current consumer base.
First, I don't think Dakka is an accurate representation of GW's consumer base. I'm looking for something official from GW themselves. There's no doubt that that such players exist, but they tend to be rather noisy compared to the alternative, giving the false impression that they are more numerous (or important) than they actually are.
Second, with all the bad publicity surrounding AoS, it has a stigma attached to it that has created a negative impression, even (or especially) among those who have not played it. My Warmachine group was mocking AoS, not a single one of them having played it, and I know for a fact that several of them would love it. The phrasing of the poll is less "Are you a tournament player?" and more "How much do you hate AoS?" And again, the people who hate AoS tend to be louder and more likely to engage in a poll of that nature, giving an unfair appearance of their opinions being the popular (and informed) ones.
agnosto wrote: I know AoS was created by people who play games entirely different to how most of us do but that's no excuse for making something so unfriendly to the majority of your current consumer base.
agnosto wrote: What killed AoS for me is my inability to utilize real world tactics;
Yes, I agree. I feel AoS models wizards and goblins riding on the backs of giant spiders all wrong compared to how they existed in history.
AoS severely hampers my ability and has no flexibility for me to create a, in my mind, tactically valid force. The reason is that I need the tacit approval of my opponent to place units and it forces me to be "sensitive" to what models they bring to the table. I might have a force of Ogre "legionnaires" in mind with gnobblar auxiliary support and pincer wings of mournfangs but show up to play and the opponent I happen meet wrecks this by not placing enough forces to be competitive against my concept force. My fun is ruined and if I go ahead an place what I have in mind, his fun is ruined.
Isn't that just you being selfish though? Maybe there are people out there that play in the manner that you would like... but does every game have to be that way? Is your fun really ruined when you have to occasionally play the game differently when playing against a new opponent? I mean really? Is it really ruined? Your fun? Ruined? Just going to spend the rest of the day sitting in a corner, pouting, because some donkey-cave had the unmitigated GALL to want to play a game with you? What a jerk!
Think of it like dating. When you first meet, you may have to do things you aren't interested in, like going roller skating. But if you have fun, you can keep seeing each other. And by the third date, you should be comfortable enough with your partner to start asking for the things you really want. You know, the kinky stuff.
There is no tactical depth. People can talk about zones of control like it's a new concept and didn't exist in 8th edition or TFGs.
I didn't say it was new. I said it was fundamental, as in the rules are built around it. Literally. The majority of the rules are about movement up to (but not into) this zone, that you must flee to escape the zone, that you charge into the zone, about starting in this zone to begin combat, about piling in exactly the same length as the zone's radius, and probably other rules I've forgotten about. Pretty much every rule on page 3 is about this 3" zone directly or indirectly.
I also said that its ramifications are not immediately obvious. The rules are built around this zone of control, but they never explicitly say, "hey guy, this model exerts undue influence in the 3" area immediately surrounding it, allowing it to do X, Y, and Z. Relax, guy. Take a load off."
I know AoS was created by people who play games entirely different to how most of us do but that's no excuse for making something so unfriendly to the majority of your current consumer base.
Citation needed.
Do you require everyone you converse with to defend their personal opinions or is it something you do for fun on the internet? I honestly don't know how you could even come close to the impression that I was conveying a general consensus of the community at large or the like, but ok.
Citation needed? Why? You don't have to agree with me. I could spend the time it takes, if I cared, to talk about lower sales volume on financial reports since the push to "collector" vs. "game" mentality at GW. I could talk about how people like Jervis Johnson, Rick Priestly and others have talked on record about how they play(ed) games in the design studio. I could take the time to cite all of that, but if you're too lazy to research it yourself, I can't be arsed to do the work for you.
Contrary, you could provide citations to prove me wrong. No? OK, we both have an opinion, on the internet, wow, the world continues to turn.
agnosto wrote: Do you require everyone you converse with to defend their personal opinions or is it something you do for fun on the internet? I honestly don't know how you could even come close to the impression that I was conveying a general consensus of the community at large or the like, but ok.
I honestly meant no offense. I assumed that since you posted your opinion, you were willing to have a discussion about it. You made a statement about the "majority of the current consumer base", and I felt that was not something one could claim in good faith without some evidence to back it up. There is a difference between an informed opinion and an ass pull, and discussions are far more productive and useful with the former.
I joined these forums for the purposes of providing an intelligent counterpoint to the ceaseless whining going on about AoS in every thread. Your statement "I know AoS was created by people who play games entirely different to how most of us do but that's no excuse for making something so unfriendly to the majority of your current consumer base." is exactly the sort of bandwagon-seeking whining that I aim to provide a counterpoint to.
Citation needed? Why? You don't have to agree with me. I could spend the time it takes, if I cared, to talk about lower sales volume on financial reports since the push to "collector" vs. "game" mentality at GW. I could talk about how people like Jervis Johnson, Rick Priestly and others have talked on record about how they play(ed) games in the design studio. I could take the time to cite all of that, but if you're too lazy to research it yourself, I can't be arsed to do the work for you.
I've seen some of the articles you are likely referring to, as well as read commentary on the recent financials, and I'm not sure what assumptions you can fairly draw from that. I don't think the GW could create a game like 40k, designed and played in the manner that it is, without understanding the players that enjoy it. And I'm not sure that the whining against AoS represents a majority voice in GW's consumer market, as strong and diverse as it must be across the dozen different countries in multiple continents that they serve. I don't think AoS stands firm against certain types of gamers, only that maybe it doesn't meet their expectations - which I'm not convinced is an act of cruelty or insult. I think AoS was GW's attempt at building a Wii. A blue ocean strategy that sought to compete in areas where other wargames don't even bother to go.
But I fully admit that these are assumptions. Maybe Games Workshop really does hate you and purposely designed a game expressly to make you feel uncomfortable and angry, forcing you to take your tainted tournament player blood money with you to its competitors. I guess such things are possible. Seems a bit far fetched, personally.
I honestly meant no offense. I assumed that since you posted your opinion, you were willing to have a discussion about it. You made a statement about the "majority of the current consumer base", and I felt that was not something one could claim in good faith without some evidence to back it up. There is a difference between an informed opinion and an ass pull, and discussions are far more productive and useful with the former.
Ah, so I'm a bad guy for reading this:
Isn't that just you being selfish though? Maybe there are people out there that play in the manner that you would like... but does every game have to be that way? Is your fun really ruined when you have to occasionally play the game differently when playing against a new opponent? I mean really? Is it really ruined? Your fun? Ruined? Just going to spend the rest of the day sitting in a corner, pouting, because some donkey-cave had the unmitigated GALL to want to play a game with you? What a jerk!
At face value and reading the tone to be genuine since you went into so many words to get it across. You're basically calling me a whiney brat for stating that the game is not my cup of tea and explaining why. I'm not attempting to tell people that they're doing anything wrong, I'm just saying why I don't like something. Opinion.
I joined these forums for the purposes of providing an intelligent counterpoint to the ceaseless whining going on about AoS in every thread. Your statement "I know AoS was created by people who play games entirely different to how most of us do but that's no excuse for making something so unfriendly to the majority of your current consumer base." is exactly the sort of bandwagon-seeking whining that I aim to provide a counterpoint to.
Good for you! Go forth and tell us all how we're whiney brats who are having fun the wrong way.
I've seen some of the articles you are likely referring to, as well as read commentary on the recent financials, and I'm not sure what assumptions you can fairly draw from that. I don't think the GW could create a game like 40k, designed and played in the manner that it is, without understanding the players that enjoy it. And I'm not sure that the whining against AoS represents a majority voice in GW's consumer market, as strong and diverse as it must be across the dozen different countries in multiple continents that they serve. I don't think AoS stands firm against certain types of gamers, only that maybe it doesn't meet their expectations - which I'm not convinced is an act of cruelty or insult. I think AoS was GW's attempt at building a Wii. A blue ocean strategy that sought to compete in areas where other wargames don't even bother to go.
Whining. Yeah, such a constructive way to have a "conversation", I'd hate to see how you speak to people that genuinely make you upset. I'll state another opinion that I'm not going to bother providing citations for; a company can not change a primary product without expecting people who have a vested interest in that product to be upset and feeling disaffected. It's been tossed around in AoS discussions quite a bit but new coke is an easy example. Some people loved it, some people were apathetic but the largest voice was one of hate.
I could argue your assumption
But I fully admit that these are assumptions. Maybe Games Workshop really does hate you and purposely designed a game expressly to make you feel uncomfortable and angry, forcing you to take your tainted tournament player blood money with you to its competitors. I guess such things are possible. Seems a bit far fetched, personally.
Yes, very conducive to having an intelligent, mature discussion; and you wonder why I took umbrage with your earlier comments.
agnosto wrote: At face value and reading the tone to be genuine since you went into so many words to get it across. You're basically calling me a whiney brat for stating that the game is not my cup of tea and explaining why. I'm not attempting to tell people that they're doing anything wrong, I'm just saying why I don't like something. Opinion.
First of all, I seem to have upset you, and for that I apologize. AoS is a divisive product and emotions run strong on both sides. I assumed that if you could sit there insulting other gamers, then you would have no trouble standing firm when those gamers responded. If I misjudged this about you, I am truly sorry. I prefer to have my online debates with people who don't take every comment personally.
What I was responding to was your comment that this other player "ruined your fun", which I felt was unfairly placing blame on the other player and which seemed like a gross over-exaggeration and a bit whiny - hence the sarcastic response. If other players are truly so culpable in your lack of enjoyment, I'm not sure I have much of a response.
Good for you! Go forth and tell us all how we're whiney brats who are having fun the wrong way.
I should remind you that this whole exchange started because you said that other players not playing the way you wanted to play ruined your fun, and that you hated the social contract required to find an enjoyable game through compromise. I didn't start off by saying that people were having fun the wrong way. You did.
a company can not change a primary product without expecting people who have a vested interest in that product to be upset and feeling disaffected.
Perfectly acceptable opinion to have. The idea that these people would be upset at those who like the change is what I consider offensive.
It's been tossed around in AoS discussions quite a bit but new coke is an easy example. Some people loved it, some people were apathetic but the largest voice was one of hate.
And yet, the Coke you drink today is New Coke. New Coke was just Coke using high fructose corn syrup instead of the more expensive sugar. Coke gradually changed the formula over time, boiling the lobster so to speak, and now people enjoy the product (New Coke) just as much as they ever enjoyed the last (Classic Coke). So if you really want to use New Coke as your example, you are effectively saying that people are upset at change, and would enjoy the product just fine if it didn't come with all that baggage - which I guess is a good point.
agnosto wrote: a company can not change a primary product without expecting people who have a vested interest in that product to be upset and feeling disaffected.
Why not? Pepsi changes their formula all the time. BK is no longer flame-grilled. McD is all microwaves now, and NOBODY CARES.
For the tiny % who care about Coke, you can get Mexican Cokes made with sugar.
Sqorgar wrote: First of all, I seem to have upset you, and for that I apologize. AoS is a divisive product and emotions run strong on both sides. I assumed that if you could sit there insulting other gamers, then you would have no trouble standing firm when those gamers responded. If I misjudged this about you, I am truly sorry. I prefer to have my online debates with people who don't take every comment personally.
I'm not upset, if I were, I simply wouldn't respond. No, I just generally treat others as they treat me. If you're rude to me, I respond in kind. Please point out where I insult anyone for their enjoyment of AoS or in fact offer any insult at all to any person. My post was entirely of my opinion about the game, the game, not the people who play it. Personally, I feel that checkers is a waste of time but I'm certain there are many people who enjoy it even if I don't. I don't think any less of these people, we simply have different taste. We can disagree about a game of plastic army men without calling one of us, "a whiner" or accusing him of "spend the rest of the day sitting in a corner, pouting" if we don't get our way about something. What's odd here is that I never expressed that I expected something. It's also odd that you would twist what I actually wrote to the point of contriving some insult when there was none, overt nor implied. I prefer to have online debates on actual points rather than contrived ones but I guess we'll be different there.
What I was responding to was your comment that this other player "ruined your fun", which I felt was unfairly placing blame on the other player and which seemed like a gross over-exaggeration and a bit whiny - hence the sarcastic response. If other players are truly so culpable in your lack of enjoyment, I'm not sure I have much of a response.
I should remind you that this whole exchange started because you said that other players not playing the way you wanted to play ruined your fun, and that you hated the social contract required to find an enjoyable game through compromise. I didn't start off by saying that people were having fun the wrong way. You did.
I'm not sure that you actually read what I wrote. Here, I'll post it again:
"AoS severely hampers my ability and has no flexibility for me to create a, in my mind, tactically valid force. The reason is that I need the tacit approval of my opponent to place units and it forces me to be "sensitive" to what models they bring to the table. I might have a force of Ogre "legionnaires" in mind with gnobblar auxiliary support and pincer wings of mournfangs but show up to play and the opponent I happen to meet wrecks this by not placing enough forces to be competitive against my concept force. My fun is ruined and if I go ahead and place what I have in mind, his fun is ruined."
I don't see anything in there about me forcing or expecting people to play the way that I do. I previously stated that I do not play AoS and this is the major reason why. Had I actually stated that I expect everyone to play like I do, I would understand your point. This is what's called a hypothetical scenario, I've underlined the parts that should have indicated this to you. I'm sorry that you failed to understand the post and then made a derogatory comment about what you assumed to be there but actually wasn't.
Perfectly acceptable opinion to have. The idea that these people would be upset at those who like the change is what I consider offensive.
Did I do that? I fail to see anything that I wrote containing something like that, in fact, in an earlier post in this thread I congratulated the OP for having fun with AoS. Other people's fun may not be my fun but that's ok, the world's a big place. You might be projecting some misplaced anger for such people onto my posts, I recommend a deep breath and coming back to reread what I wrote before flying off of the handle and slinging names about.
And yet, the Coke you drink today is New Coke. New Coke was just Coke using high fructose corn syrup instead of the more expensive sugar. Coke gradually changed the formula over time, boiling the lobster so to speak, and now people enjoy the product (New Coke) just as much as they ever enjoyed the last (Classic Coke). So if you really want to use New Coke as your example, you are effectively saying that people are upset at change, and would enjoy the product just fine if it didn't come with all that baggage - which I guess is a good point.
Kind of the point. Coke announced a sudden shift and faced backlash, they changed it over time and faced whimpers. There's still a market for sugar infused coke though. GW is arguably doing this with 40K; shift to "unbound" as an option and all of the formations coming out. I would say that this method is more successful than just trashing the entire thing and starting from scratch.
I have read this thread with some interest and I just wanted to put my point of view because I think some of the arguements here are circular and there is a lot of self fulfilling prophesising. Interestingly a lot of what people are arguing about isn't actually contradictory. I will expand..
Before I start, I will pre-empt my view by saying I haven't played a game of AoS yet. This means I am not an authority on it, and this would apply to anyone in my situation.
Firstly, I disagree with people who say that everyone has a entrenched view. I was really angry about the game when it was released. I have been through several editions of fantasy, and this game is no where near complete in terms of rules, and I was unhappy about that. I wasn't especially bothered about the rather derivative fantasy world exploding, it was tired and hadn't changed in years. I stopped ranting about it on the forums and looked into alternatives. However, my view is changing. This doesn't contradict my original position.
I don't think for one minute GW came up with an ingenuous game concept of providing players with a framework to develop their own rules. I think they wanted to make a game with a low cost entry point and sell lots of models. The rules were clearly an afterthought and if you used them to the letter then the game is ridiculous. If you don't believe that, then play me in a 100 model aside game, I will bring 50 models worth of summoners and fill the board in three turns.
But this isn't the point. AoS can be broken more than any other game and GW have neglected their role to provide a proper framework for army selection/design which for some people is a big part of the hobby. But it doesn't matter, because if you are a competitive player AoS is also the easiest game to comp because there a no restrictions.
In essence, through, in my opinion, GW neglect of one element of the hobby, to prioritise another, there is a simple game here with opportunities for complexity if you want it and play for fun if you don't. There are plenty of army selection systems out there already and we are a month in, but you can feel free not to use them.
By comparison, 40k is one of the most unbalanced games out there. It has layers of structure, and in my view as a 40k player, over complexity with detachments, formations, demi companies, decurions etc. If you think this level of complexity makes it more down to player ability you couldn't be more wrong. If you don't believe me, pick an ork army and face a necron decurion detachment with all the bells and whistles.
As for the gameplay, I can't comment on that, but I am optimistic that this element will develop with warscrolls replacing the 8th edition. There are some things I don't like and will probably house rule them, but the game has a sense of players can do what you like to it.
Ultimately we will know in a year or so where the game stands. But doom and gloom at this early stage I think is premature.
agnosto wrote: a company can not change a primary product without expecting people who have a vested interest in that product to be upset and feeling disaffected.
WFB was a primary product? Pretty sure GW's primary product is leasing IP rights to other companies and suing anyone copying their miniatures.
I joined these forums for the purposes of providing an intelligent counterpoint to the ceaseless whining going on about AoS in every thread. Your statement "I know AoS was created by people who play games entirely different to how most of us do but that's no excuse for making something so unfriendly to the majority of your current consumer base." is exactly the sort of bandwagon-seeking whining that I aim to provide a counterpoint to.
I'm so glad you joined to save us. I didn't like AOS but when you told me I'm just a whinner, I saw the truth. There are indeed no criticisms to be made of the game. Ever.
Listen. This is a discussion forum. Specifically a thread about AOS and what people think of it. Some of those opinions (many in this case) have a low opinion of the game.
How about this:
Why do you constantly come to this forum and spout your pro-AOS nonesense in every thread? Don't you have anything better to do? Why don't you go leave us with criticisms in peace?
Pretty silly huh? It sounds no less silly when you say it.
agnosto wrote: a company can not change a primary product without expecting people who have a vested interest in that product to be upset and feeling disaffected.
WFB was a primary product? Pretty sure GW's primary product is leasing IP rights to other companies and suing anyone copying their miniatures.
WFB is definitely a primary product. Tens, mayb hundreds, of thousands of gamers have bought millions of models over the years. The Games has nearly 4 decades of history. It's very understandable that people would be upset when GW killed the game. It will continue the way other deceased games do, but get no attention from GW.
That they also made a new game that you can use with your old figures is for some people a benefit, and for others a poor substitute that they will focus their anger on.
There doesn't need to be a consensus. Some people will hate AOS with out ever having played it. Others will embrace the game. Some will try it eventually and like it, or not.
In many ways both AOS and 8thWFB are in the same boat. They both need help from the community to keep being viable games. Several groups are working on points systems for AOS. (I personally like the Azyr system). WFB has players who want to continue 8th, and others that are working on 8.5 and similar rewrites. It's like WFB is an old veteran turned away from his home, and AOS is the teenage soldier sent off to war only half trained and just 1 bullet.
I'm having fun playing AOS. And actually beating people because of the use of tactics. Things like flanking and double envelopements.
I just got my copy of KOW, be testing that this weekend.
And looking at 8.5 and hoping to see more from that system and eagre to play it.
Part of me will always be pissed at GW for killing WFB, but I'm not going to quit using my miniatures.
I'm so glad you joined to save us. I didn't like AOS but when you told me I'm just a whinner, I saw the truth. There are indeed no criticisms to be made of the game. Ever.
I joined to talk about AoS. I find it fascinating and wish to see many long discussions about it. But that doesn't happen because every thread eventually becomes about why certain repeat posters dislike AoS so very much. And it is whining. It is childish and ill-tempered sulking. This...
chnmmr wrote:I'm sorry, I have nothing constructive to say about AoS. I have nothing supportive to say about it. I loathe the game in every way.
... is childish.
This...
chnmmr wrote:Currently its A** of Sigmar, and that suits us just fine.
... is childish.
This...
MWHistorian wrote:Its a game for people that don't want to think. I happen to enjoy thinking about my games.
... is childish.
Plumbumbarum quoting the opening post of this thread with the one word response, "No" is childish.
And there ARE criticisms of AoS, but this gak ain't criticism. So yeah, you guys are a bunch of whiners. You don't like a game so you belittle, insult, and offend those who do. And you make it practically impossible to actually talk about the game because you just absolutely must derail every thread with your "criticisms" regardless of their quality or desire to be heard. Because you are upset, dammit, and your pain must be acknowledged! It won't be.
At some point, the butt hurt sulking has to stop. I vote for sooner than later.
I did not enjoy writing this post. I'd much rather be discussing AoS than calling out other posters on their behavior. I entered this thread to offer a different point of view on the concept of points and balance, and to share the insight Magic designers had on the different natures of its players. That was an interesting discussion. Let's go back to that.
Believe it or not heaps of people join on forums to "enter a different perspective or point of view" only to say what has been said over and over again by repeat posters. Usually they change in time bar some exceptions.
Honestly dude, the game is awful. People have posted it heaps about why, it's just annoying repeating why it is bad over and over because someone new comes along thinking they have some special mind changing insight for us all.
It's hardly childish to talk crap about a crap game.
If anyone but GW tried to use these rules everyone would have laughed them out of business. I reckon even the defenders of this game on this forum would have laughed at this rule set had it not had the big GW logo on it.
The reason you have rubbish being told on all sides is because the arguments have gone in a circle and it ends up being a record on repeat (on all sides) so it ends up blurring into a mosh of stuff.
If you don't like childishness on the internet either ignore it or make your own private forum to monitor.
Sqorgar wrote: I joined to talk about AoS. I find it fascinating and wish to see many long discussions about it. But that doesn't happen because every thread eventually becomes about why certain repeat posters dislike AoS so very much.
I did not enjoy writing this post. I'd much rather be discussing AoS than calling out other posters on their behavior.
There is a mod alert button that you can hit when you feel the "I hate AOS" is overly spammy.
There is also the option to ignore the whiners.
That said, at some point, it would be nice if the "I hate AOS" posters would go away, and leave the constructive discussion to those who don't hate AoS.
The original post is made by a full time game designer.......
I don't know if I can believe any sort of professional game designer would promote the AOS game. Or feel that it has any sort of good game design structure. As it turns out, I am also a professional game designer of sorts (computer and mobile games). Not sure if that counts but I can tell you that you sure as hell would never design any computer game like you would AOS. Imagine having a multiplayer game where you gave 1 team rocket launchers and then the other team pistols....that's AOS.
Yes, we all get the argument that AOS promotes a non-competitive game......we friggin get it! That's actually how me and my friends already play 40k. We try to make lists that will make for good battles! The point he makes about AOS being a low-stress game I would attribute to people not taking the game seriously in any way. For instance I watched a battle report from 1+ armor guys, and despite their efforts to balance 2 lists, 1 army destroyed the other convincingly. Any ways, the guys just laughed about it, made some jokes about how broken AOS is and then stopped playing and changed to a different game. So yeah, they weren't stressed out but only because the system is perceived as laughable.
Someone mentioned earlier, that if AOS was so good than why are so many people complaining about it. And this I can tell you is so right on! If 50 people say it's good and then 50 people say it's bad, then you can be assured you have a really bad product!
From my mind as a fellow game designer I will tell you what I think is flawed and what people mean about "no tactics" in AOS. For starters, all good games have elements of "rock,paper,scissors" in their games. So for instance in 40k you have guns and weapons that have different AP values. So power swords are pretty good in hand to hand combat....unless you're fighting terminators! Even good sandbox games like Dungeons and Dragons (not competitive at all) has RPS elements like Skeletons being weak to bashing weapons yet resistant to piercing. AOS however is missing this crucial element to good game design! They have fixed dice rolls on all of the units.....so your goblins are just as efficient at fighting dragons as they are other goblins! It is this flaw that leads to the inevitable mosh-pit in the middle of the board. There are also very little in the way of movement tactics because there are no bonuses to charging and the players take turns with initiative steps. So in a way it makes less difference if you are the one who charged or got charged.
This is how I understand the full extent of tactics in AOS:
-pick a list of warscrolls. Some units buff other units. Don't make your list too good or you will stomp your friend....
- Run all your guys that hit stuff to the middle of the board and leave your shooty stuff in the back....Don't worry too much about how you place them or who they will fight just run to the centre of the board.
- The mosh-pit starts.....always pick your strongest unit that will deal the most dmg so to negate your enemies attacks back. NEVER pick a unit who's enemy has already acted that turn.
- Roll dice......always the same. Played your friends orcs last game hitting on 3+ 4+? Guess what, now you're playing against Demons....3+ 4+! Never changes.
This is why people don't want to play the game....and if you watch any battle reports or play any games this is what you get!
Sqorgar wrote: And there ARE criticisms of AoS, but this gak ain't criticism. So yeah, you guys are a bunch of whiners. You don't like a game so you belittle, insult, and offend those who do. And you make it practically impossible to actually talk about the game because you just absolutely must derail every thread with your "criticisms" regardless of their quality or desire to be heard. Because you are upset, dammit, and your pain must be acknowledged! It won't be.
I enjoyed this post - it mirrors how I've felt reading the AoS forums in this first couple months, even as someone who himself misses the old setting, and has his own criticism of the rules.
I've been in this hobby so long now, that it's actually not the first time this phenomenon has happened that I can recall.
In 1997, I bought a copy of what looked to me to be the coolest thing ever: Epic 40,000! The same game as Warhammer 40k, which I was still new to, but instead of a Rhino or two and some scrubby starter set marines, you had whole companies of marines with support artillery and Landraiders, against seemingly zillions of Orks. I was completely stoked, and although the rules seemed kind of wonky, I got friends to play with my starter box armies, and we were on our way.
Unfortunately, unknown to me, Epic 40k had replaced another game, Epic: Space Marine, which many considered to be a superior game. I won't argue that it was or wasn't, but this meant whenever I got those amazing little Rhinos and Whirlwinds and Battlewagons out in a public gaming store, the same two guys would seem to teleport in out of nowhere and begin grumping and hissing at us that we were playing the wrong game, and that GW should be boycotted until they brought back Epic: Space Marine. One in particular would begin loudly comparing the rules, as if arguing for basic human rights, explaining why individual weapon stats were superior to "that stupid firepower BS" and so on. And, it was hard, as someone with no loyalty to either game, to be like "Okay, that's nice. Well, um, we really want to play our game now, if you're done... Oh, you're not done... okay, um, we'll keep playing if you want to just, complain slightly quieter, a few more feet away from me..."
Oddly, today I mostly agree with their points - Epic 40k did scrap the basic game engine of the older game, and the older game was so well liked that internet communities came together to make an unofficial living version of the old rules. (NetEpic, I believe its called) But, I also wish we could have just played some Epic 40k in peace.
I imagine there's a lot of teens right now in those gaming stores, setting their freshly glued together Stormcast on a game store table to try to figure out the rules with a friend, while another generation of disgruntled veterans move in to make certain they know not to like it.
The rock paper scissors of AoS is actually there, just in how the units run based on movement and special rules. Archers/artillery counter monsters, monsters counter infantry, infantry counter cavalry, cavalry counter archers/artillery.
The moshpit in the middle will happen WAY less often once people start really putting terrain down on the field. When you see games end in a pile, you'll notice a huge empty space right in the center of the field. Put down some decent sized buildings in a 2' area in the center and watch the game and maneuvering really open up.
bob82ca wrote: The original post is made by a full time game designer.......
I don't know if I can believe any sort of professional game designer would promote the AOS game. Or feel that it has any sort of good game design structure. As it turns out, I am also a professional game designer of sorts (computer and mobile games). Not sure if that counts but I can tell you that you sure as hell would never design any computer game like you would AOS. Imagine having a multiplayer game where you gave 1 team rocket launchers and then the other team pistols....that's AOS.
Yes, we all get the argument that AOS promotes a non-competitive game......we friggin get it! That's actually how me and my friends already play 40k. We try to make lists that will make for good battles! The point he makes about AOS being a low-stress game I would attribute to people not taking the game seriously in any way. For instance I watched a battle report from 1+ armor guys, and despite their efforts to balance 2 lists, 1 army destroyed the other convincingly. Any ways, the guys just laughed about it, made some jokes about how broken AOS is and then stopped playing and changed to a different game. So yeah, they weren't stressed out but only because the system is perceived as laughable.
Someone mentioned earlier, that if AOS was so good than why are so many people complaining about it. And this I can tell you is so right on! If 50 people say it's good and then 50 people say it's bad, then you can be assured you have a really bad product!
From my mind as a fellow game designer I will tell you what I think is flawed and what people mean about "no tactics" in AOS. For starters, all good games have elements of "rock,paper,scissors" in their games. So for instance in 40k you have guns and weapons that have different AP values. So power swords are pretty good in hand to hand combat....unless you're fighting terminators! Even good sandbox games like Dungeons and Dragons (not competitive at all) has RPS elements like Skeletons being weak to bashing weapons yet resistant to piercing. AOS however is missing this crucial element to good game design! They have fixed dice rolls on all of the units.....so your goblins are just as efficient at fighting dragons as they are other goblins! It is this flaw that leads to the inevitable mosh-pit in the middle of the board. There are also very little in the way of movement tactics because there are no bonuses to charging and the players take turns with initiative steps. So in a way it makes less difference if you are the one who charged or got charged.
This is how I understand the full extent of tactics in AOS:
-pick a list of warscrolls. Some units buff other units. Don't make your list too good or you will stomp your friend....
- Run all your guys that hit stuff to the middle of the board and leave your shooty stuff in the back....Don't worry too much about how you place them or who they will fight just run to the centre of the board.
- The mosh-pit starts.....always pick your strongest unit that will deal the most dmg so to negate your enemies attacks back. NEVER pick a unit who's enemy has already acted that turn.
- Roll dice......always the same. Played your friends orcs last game hitting on 3+ 4+? Guess what, now you're playing against Demons....3+ 4+! Never changes.
This is why people don't want to play the game....and if you watch any battle reports or play any games this is what you get!
The reason the 50/50 thing is a little frustrating is it seems like most of the people complaining have not played the game or read the fluff they are complaining about. And then, because so much of what people hear about the game is negativity from people who have not played it or read the story, others get the impression the game is bad and that all there is to it is repeating more negativity. I personally had a bad initial impression of the game based on things I read on this forum. Then I actually looked into it and wow, it turns out the game is actually pretty interesting and the setting has a lot of potential.
Your criticisms of the game mechanics aren't really accurate, possibly because you haven't played the game either. Just starting at the basic level, all the attacks in the game have a Rend stat and all the units in the game have a saving throw stat. Units with Rend perform way, way better against models with decent saving throws than units without. There are also models that can cause Mortal Wounds, which ignore saving throws altogether. Again, these are very good against models with good saving throws while not being any better than regular wounds against models with no saving throw.
The terrain rules also seem to be really important. If you are in cover, you get +1 to your saving throw. If you are charging mindlessly towards your opponent then it seems to me that you are probably not taking advantage of the terrain. There are many rules around the terrain, and I think if you ignore them then the game becomes more shallow. Weird, right?
It seems like the biggest failure here is that Games Workshop hasn't done a good job of selling the rules and demonstrating how they can lead to fun, interesting decisions. People generally seem to agree the models are very high quality, and they are the main thing GW seem to have really showcased properly. It's a shame they didn't do the same for the rules and backstory.
About the only thing positive I can say in regards to AoS is that the new Blood Reavers look interesting. The Chaos fortress also looks neat.
Until they make something medieval looking again, I'll probably be passing on most of their stuff.
The ruleset on the other hand is simply diarrhea vomit. If you want to look hard and long at that, I understand; it's one of those horrifying scenes where you might be prone to rubber necking and/or smelling the air to gauge the stench.
agnosto wrote: a company can not change a primary product without expecting people who have a vested interest in that product to be upset and feeling disaffected.
Why not? Pepsi changes their formula all the time. BK is no longer flame-grilled. McD is all microwaves now, and NOBODY CARES.
They're still largely delivering something that the ultimate consumer can't tell a difference between however. Look at Coke when it tried to do New Coke, and you'll see how problems can arise when you deliver something that the average consumer can tell is markedly different.
I'm so glad you joined to save us. I didn't like AOS but when you told me I'm just a whinner, I saw the truth. There are indeed no criticisms to be made of the game. Ever.
I joined to talk about AoS. I find it fascinating and wish to see many long discussions about it. But that doesn't happen because every thread eventually becomes about why certain repeat posters dislike AoS so very much. And it is whining. It is childish and ill-tempered sulking. This...
chnmmr wrote:I'm sorry, I have nothing constructive to say about AoS. I have nothing supportive to say about it. I loathe the game in every way.
... is childish.
This...
chnmmr wrote:Currently its A** of Sigmar, and that suits us just fine.
... is childish.
This...
MWHistorian wrote:Its a game for people that don't want to think. I happen to enjoy thinking about my games.
... is childish.
Plumbumbarum quoting the opening post of this thread with the one word response, "No" is childish.
And there ARE criticisms of AoS, but this gak ain't criticism. So yeah, you guys are a bunch of whiners. You don't like a game so you belittle, insult, and offend those who do. And you make it practically impossible to actually talk about the game because you just absolutely must derail every thread with your "criticisms" regardless of their quality or desire to be heard. Because you are upset, dammit, and your pain must be acknowledged! It won't be.
At some point, the butt hurt sulking has to stop. I vote for sooner than later.
I did not enjoy writing this post. I'd much rather be discussing AoS than calling out other posters on their behavior. I entered this thread to offer a different point of view on the concept of points and balance, and to share the insight Magic designers had on the different natures of its players. That was an interesting discussion. Let's go back to that.
*can't think of any real argument to make and found people who don't share my opinion, thus will reply with the ultimate counter argument while seeming to be mature and intellectual and as an attempt to shut down those who differ in opinion.* ...is childish.
Not the best argument to make when the current discussion is quite heated. The game is sorely lacking especially compared to what it replaced. The change is simply too much and is now an unrecognizable game in an unrecognizable world. The game is undefendable because anyone who calls themselves a wargamer would recognize this for what it is. A means of selling new models by resetting the lore to make it approachable to new players, resetting the rules to make the new forces better than the old ones (therefore selling more models,) and to make the rules basic enough that older children can pick the game up and play it without difficulty (selling more models.) The game attached to these models is secondary.
I love how everyone said that games workshop should make easier rules and give them out for free if they are really a model company and not a game company. Then they do and are now getting criticized for trying to sell more models with this rule set.
Age of sigmar could have been put out by ANY game company and I would still be excited. It is the closest I've seen to my first wargaming love mageknight, and it just so happens that my knights immortal models have a very similar theme to the high elf model range allowing me to dust off my minis and play them as a large scale skirmish game alongside some other stuff I've come across over the years
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: I love how everyone said that games workshop should make easier rules and give them out for free if they are really a model company and not a game company. Then they do and are now getting criticized for trying to sell more models with this rule set.
Age of sigmar could have been put out by ANY game company and I would still be excited. It is the closest I've seen to my first wargaming love mageknight, and it just so happens that my knights immortal models have a very similar theme to the high elf model range allowing me to dust off my minis and play them as a large scale skirmish game alongside some other stuff I've come across over the years
haha
Everyone can agree AOS has potential with streamlining etc. HOWEVER like most things GW does it's 1 step forward and 2 steps back. This is not what anyone wanted. In fact please find me evidence where everyone was asking for anything like AOS? the ONLY THING AOS did was give us free "rules" unfortunately these "rules" are not what was asked for. AOS still has the same problems as 40k but worse (lack of structure, lack of balance, endless special rules for everything, stupid model prices, confusing/bloated rules, unclear rules etc etc).
Please stop lying mate, if another company made this game, chances are you would not play this game. Just looking at your post history it's 40k, 40k, 40k and a little AOS... suuuuuuuure you would be excited. Based on your post history I severely doubt you play/will play anything that GW doesn't sell. Not that's its a bad thing, but it is pretty far fetched to think you would be excited about these rules without GW in the picture... I am going to assume you are talking out your booty here anyway.
Sqorgar wrote: I joined to talk about AoS. I find it fascinating and wish to see many long discussions about it. But that doesn't happen because every thread eventually becomes about why certain repeat posters dislike AoS so very much.
I did not enjoy writing this post. I'd much rather be discussing AoS than calling out other posters on their behavior.
There is a mod alert button that you can hit when you feel the "I hate AOS" is overly spammy.
There is also the option to ignore the whiners.
That said, at some point, it would be nice if the "I hate AOS" posters would go away, and leave the constructive discussion to those who don't hate AoS.
I agree i think AOS should get a section of its own and Oldhammer (now i suppose all other editions in its own section) and mods can mod AOS section to deal with only positive opinions of AOS... perhaps the new AOS section can be listed under tic tac toe sub section so its not confused with warhammer fantasy battle 1-8th editions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: I love how everyone said that games workshop should make easier rules and give them out for free if they are really a model company and not a game company. Then they do and are now getting criticized for trying to sell more models with this rule set.
Age of sigmar could have been put out by ANY game company and I would still be excited. It is the closest I've seen to my first wargaming love mageknight, and it just so happens that my knights immortal models have a very similar theme to the high elf model range allowing me to dust off my minis and play them as a large scale skirmish game alongside some other stuff I've come across over the years
I never said i wanted rules that were "easier" and or "free." I would like them to write rules that were easier to reference material in some cases, knock off all the random table stuff (some of it is ok, but random tables for a lot of stuff doesnt add to the game in positive way for me personally). I say this cause of your "everyone" comment
Well the rules might be good for mageknight . I personally would not have looked at the rules if they were another company's rules and if i did see them i would have thought meh. That is my opinion however, i am sure everyone else has their own too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kveldulf wrote: About the only thing positive I can say in regards to AoS is that the new Blood Reavers look interesting. The Chaos fortress also looks neat.
Until they make something medieval looking again, I'll probably be passing on most of their stuff.
The ruleset on the other hand is simply diarrhea vomit. If you want to look hard and long at that, I understand; it's one of those horrifying scenes where you might be prone to rubber necking and/or smelling the air to gauge the stench.
I agree AOS is like training pants for todlers wanting to get into wargaming or for wargamers who want a game that takes no pre-planning to play etc. Sorry if i offend, i really dont care as this is my opinon and sorry if you dont like it
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: I love how everyone said that games workshop should make easier rules and give them out for free if they are really a model company and not a game company. Then they do and are now getting criticized for trying to sell more models with this rule set.
Age of sigmar could have been put out by ANY game company and I would still be excited. It is the closest I've seen to my first wargaming love mageknight, and it just so happens that my knights immortal models have a very similar theme to the high elf model range allowing me to dust off my minis and play them as a large scale skirmish game alongside some other stuff I've come across over the years
haha
Everyone can agree AOS has potential with streamlining etc. HOWEVER like most things GW does it's 1 step forward and 2 steps back. This is not what anyone wanted. In fact please find me evidence where everyone was asking for anything like AOS? the ONLY THING AOS did was give us free "rules" unfortunately these "rules" are not what was asked for. AOS still has the same problems as 40k but worse (lack of structure, lack of balance, endless special rules for everything, stupid model prices, confusing/bloated rules, unclear rules etc etc).
Please stop lying mate, if another company made this game, chances are you would not play this game. Just looking at your post history it's 40k, 40k, 40k and a little AOS... suuuuuuuure you would be excited. Based on your post history I severely doubt you play/will play anything that GW doesn't sell. Not that's its a bad thing, but it is pretty far fetched to think you would be excited about these rules without GW in the picture... I am going to assume you are talking out your booty here anyway.
To be fair, I would have bought the Sigmarite models if they were plastic models made by any company, priced at what GW sold them for. Those are just models that I like a lot, especially the prosecutors and the judicators. But some of the other ones, too, like Lord Castellant on Drakon and Relictor.
I regularly buy all sorts of models from lots of companies.. I just got Shinobi Assassins from Wyrd, and bought (but returned because they were horribly cast) Nephilim Warriors from PP.
What I find extremely fascinating is how divisive AoS is. There are people who just absolutely adore the game, and people who seem to be repulsed by the thought of it, and relatively few people in between.
Which is weird for me, because I'm squarely in between. I don't love the game, or the mechanics, but I find it quite playable (and enjoyable). I don't really like the army building mechanism, but I do appreciate, "play what you want, not what is strong". I do love the models and the fluff and artwork -- enough to buy pretty expensive books (though my wife really loves them, so that's a separate reason to buy them) -- but I don't love the scenarios enough to want to play them.
Clearly, the game has a *strong* draw for some people. The big question for GW is whether these people will collectively spend more than the old WHFB crowd. My gut instinct is... yes, in the short term, dunno for the long term. Maybe!
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: I love how everyone said that games workshop should make easier rules and give them out for free if they are really a model company and not a game company. Then they do and are now getting criticized for trying to sell more models with this rule set.
Age of sigmar could have been put out by ANY game company and I would still be excited. It is the closest I've seen to my first wargaming love mageknight, and it just so happens that my knights immortal models have a very similar theme to the high elf model range allowing me to dust off my minis and play them as a large scale skirmish game alongside some other stuff I've come across over the years
haha
Everyone can agree AOS has potential with streamlining etc. HOWEVER like most things GW does it's 1 step forward and 2 steps back. This is not what anyone wanted. In fact please find me evidence where everyone was asking for anything like AOS? the ONLY THING AOS did was give us free "rules" unfortunately these "rules" are not what was asked for. AOS still has the same problems as 40k but worse (lack of structure, lack of balance, endless special rules for everything, stupid model prices, confusing/bloated rules, unclear rules etc etc).
Please stop lying mate, if another company made this game, chances are you would not play this game. Just looking at your post history it's 40k, 40k, 40k and a little AOS... suuuuuuuure you would be excited. Based on your post history I severely doubt you play/will play anything that GW doesn't sell. Not that's its a bad thing, but it is pretty far fetched to think you would be excited about these rules without GW in the picture... I am going to assume you are talking out your booty here anyway.
I'm actually enjoying AOS. I've played over a dozen games, taught the game to several people, and enjoying the league we have set up. I had to a bit of work in, but then I've had to do a bit of work for every league i've ever run, for any system. The Azyr point system is working for balancing lists. We use a lot of scenery, which adds in a lot of tactics. Few wargames doe well with no scenery.
I know there is a faction out there that can't stand AOS, and seeming can't stand that anyone, anywhere might like it. But at some point you're going to have to recognize that there are people who like the game. Trying to turn every thread into a gakfest of "Why we should all hate AOS" gets old.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: I love how everyone said that games workshop should make easier rules and give them out for free if they are really a model company and not a game company. Then they do and are now getting criticized for trying to sell more models with this rule set.
Age of sigmar could have been put out by ANY game company and I would still be excited. It is the closest I've seen to my first wargaming love mageknight, and it just so happens that my knights immortal models have a very similar theme to the high elf model range allowing me to dust off my minis and play them as a large scale skirmish game alongside some other stuff I've come across over the years
haha
Everyone can agree AOS has potential with streamlining etc. HOWEVER like most things GW does it's 1 step forward and 2 steps back. This is not what anyone wanted. In fact please find me evidence where everyone was asking for anything like AOS? the ONLY THING AOS did was give us free "rules" unfortunately these "rules" are not what was asked for. AOS still has the same problems as 40k but worse (lack of structure, lack of balance, endless special rules for everything, stupid model prices, confusing/bloated rules, unclear rules etc etc).
Please stop lying mate, if another company made this game, chances are you would not play this game. Just looking at your post history it's 40k, 40k, 40k and a little AOS... suuuuuuuure you would be excited. Based on your post history I severely doubt you play/will play anything that GW doesn't sell. Not that's its a bad thing, but it is pretty far fetched to think you would be excited about these rules without GW in the picture... I am going to assume you are talking out your booty here anyway.
I'm actually enjoying AOS. I've played over a dozen games, taught the game to several people, and enjoying the league we have set up. I had to a bit of work in, but then I've had to do a bit of work for every league i've ever run, for any system. The Azyr point system is working for balancing lists. We use a lot of scenery, which adds in a lot of tactics. Few wargames doe well with no scenery.
I know there is a faction out there that can't stand AOS, and seeming can't stand that anyone, anywhere might like it. But at some point you're going to have to recognize that there are people who like the game. Trying to turn every thread into a gakfest of "Why we should all hate AOS" gets old.
Can you read... your response has nothing to do with what I said.
I never said that it is not ok to like the game... ever. Go ahead, search my posts. Stop putting words in my mouth. People who love this game claiming bull crap and making out the haters as mindless haters is also very old.
Cool, you enjoy it... carry on enjoying it then...?
Also want to point out I have seen a lot of naval games that do not use scenery. Some aircraft games too (most use clouds).
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: I love how everyone said that games workshop should make easier rules and give them out for free if they are really a model company and not a game company. Then they do and are now getting criticized for trying to sell more models with this rule set.
Age of sigmar could have been put out by ANY game company and I would still be excited. It is the closest I've seen to my first wargaming love mageknight, and it just so happens that my knights immortal models have a very similar theme to the high elf model range allowing me to dust off my minis and play them as a large scale skirmish game alongside some other stuff I've come across over the years
haha
Everyone can agree AOS has potential with streamlining etc. HOWEVER like most things GW does it's 1 step forward and 2 steps back. This is not what anyone wanted. In fact please find me evidence where everyone was asking for anything like AOS? the ONLY THING AOS did was give us free "rules" unfortunately these "rules" are not what was asked for. AOS still has the same problems as 40k but worse (lack of structure, lack of balance, endless special rules for everything, stupid model prices, confusing/bloated rules, unclear rules etc etc).
Please stop lying mate, if another company made this game, chances are you would not play this game. Just looking at your post history it's 40k, 40k, 40k and a little AOS... suuuuuuuure you would be excited. Based on your post history I severely doubt you play/will play anything that GW doesn't sell. Not that's its a bad thing, but it is pretty far fetched to think you would be excited about these rules without GW in the picture... I am going to assume you are talking out your booty here anyway.
I'm actually enjoying AOS. I've played over a dozen games, taught the game to several people, and enjoying the league we have set up. I had to a bit of work in, but then I've had to do a bit of work for every league i've ever run, for any system. The Azyr point system is working for balancing lists. We use a lot of scenery, which adds in a lot of tactics. Few wargames doe well with no scenery.
I know there is a faction out there that can't stand AOS, and seeming can't stand that anyone, anywhere might like it. But at some point you're going to have to recognize that there are people who like the game. Trying to turn every thread into a gakfest of "Why we should all hate AOS" gets old.
What is "The Azyr point system"? I did dakka search for this and nothing.
A short message to those people complaining about the fixed to hit and wound rolls. There was a sort of illusion in the last game that WS provided variation. The truth is that if you were a swordmaster you were hitting pretty much everyinthg on 3+, if you had WS3 you were hitting everything on 4+.
Sqorgar wrote: Any tactic or army composition which uses extreme edge cases in order to exploit loopholes in the rules in order to win an easy victory at the cost of playing a friendly, enjoyable game in the manner to which it was designed.
So I turn up with fifty greatswords, he turns up with fifty peasants. No loopholes. No exploitation. An intent on both parties to play a 'friendly enjoyable game'. You can't say either is wrong.
So, what's cheesy? 'Whatever cool toys the other guy has, when he wins' is the answer for a lot of people. Even when it's not.
You previously accused competitive players of being 'selfish' and of their attitude putting a 'cheesy win over a fun enjoyable game'. Essentially, you are projecting them into the wrong, when they are not 'wrong'. When does a 'win' become a 'cheesy win'? Why the zero/sum? Why is it win or fun enjoyable game? They're not necessarily different.
I could argue the casual player is just as 'selfish' as the competitive player, as he is just as insistent in wanting to force his type of game on the other, at the expense of the others wishes. I could also point out a certain sense of arrogance, self righteousness and conceit in belittling and dismissing the others alternative playstyle as 'selfish' with their 'cheesy wins' and I see it as nothing short of colossal arrogance to try to claim ownership over what is defined as a 'friendly enjoyable game' and that the other guy somehow isn't interested in it.
It goes back to defining what the components are in a 'friendly enjoyable game'. Everyone has a different answer.
Basically, draw a Venn diagram. Two circles. One circle is everything that makes up a friendly, enjoyable game (the casual view). The other circle is everything that can be done to win the game (the competitive view). The intersection of the two circles is where people have fun together. But many competitive gamers expect the casual gamers to utilize the entire winning circle at all times (even when it is not what they want), and have no trouble playing outside of the "fun intersection" to win games against opponents who want to stay within it.
Competitive does not equal tfg, which is 'everything that can be done to win the game'. Don't equate the two please. And I think your venn diagram is innacurate and a bit of a charicature.
Is there a defined example of these? Or will these Venn diagrams be different for every person? I suspect they will. Which, by their subjective nature makes them pointless for an objective discussion.
Whic goes back to 'defining what is a 'cheesy win' and 'friendly enjoyable game'. Because what you think they are, and what I think they are, and what everyone else thinks will not be the same thing.
And a lot of people's definition of 'tournament player' is akin to A Saturday moning cartoons villain. Lots of projection, exaggeration, hyperbole and myth.
I used to think it was exaggerated too, but then I remembered that I've actually played games (not mini games, but card and board games) against these kinds of players. I don't think every "tournament player" is a goblin, and I think these goblins are more amalgamations than actual people, but those tendencies are real, and there's no doubt that some players are more goblin than not.
I think a competitive player can play another competitive player and have a great, friendly game. I don't think a competitive player can carry that same attitude into games with anybody else without there being friction, and I see that in the various mini wargaming communities I visit - even Warmachine. There was a thread in the PP forums recently about how the emphasis on tournament tendencies was potentially driving away players and creating a barrier of entry for new ones. I believe the thread was called something like "Dwindling players".
Uh huh. And I've played games against 'these kinds of players' too. Thryre not all tournament players either. Some of the worst 'goblins' I've come across were casual, and casual at all costs players. Why can't competitive players carry a good attitude over to other types of gsme? You're talking crap. And you are talking an extremely warped view of players. It's not a zero-sum equation. I know for a fact that I am one of those players that can play competitively with competitive players, and casually with casual players. No friction whatsoever.
Again, there is nothing wrong with being competitive - when it is appropriate. But it is not always appropriate, and there are certain attitudes which are, if you'll excuse the term, toxic to the well being of the community. I think competitive players have a... let's call it "aggressive" way of expressing themselves, which makes them dominate discussions and communities, making their way the dominant concern of the game makers (or complaining VERY loudly and frequently, when their concerns are NOT the main concern, such as every Age of Sigmar thread ever). Seriously, competitive gamers are the only ones who will tell everyone within earshot how they are leaving the game for another one because a stat is slightly different than what they'd prefer.
So, confirmation bias. I've seen the same. Loud and obnoxious competitive player types with no appreciation for other people,guess what else I've seen? casual, and casual at all costs players say exactly the same thing,whining and moaning and lashing out at anyOne thst dares to do anything different. I did not lie eaelier. I've known forty-k players whose attitudes amount to 'you should apologise for winning a game because that means you're doing it wrong and are a terrible tfg'. I do not kid.Typically these posts come with some nasty comment about hating competitive gamers or their group and equating them all with Tfg's. Those toxic attitudes exist, but they're across the spectrum. It's a gamer thing, rather than a 'specific type of gamer' thing.
And yes, I've seen casual players 'tell everyone within earshot' how they're leaving game x for another one because of reasons.
I don't think its a divide personally. It's a different way of doing things. like how I can run marathons.
It is a different way of doing things, and in appropriate places, it is well met. I actually like playing competitive players, when I'm feeling sufficiently competitive, because I also enjoy that aspect of gaming. It's one of the reasons I like Warmachine. But there are times when competitive players are not cooperative, and their desires for the future of a game don't mesh with mine, and the resulting discussions end up less than civil.
I like how you snipped my quote in half which completely changes what I say. Point was 'I can do marathons. Or box'. Meaning you can play different games. You can do different things different ways and at different times. I agree with you. There is a time and a place to put the foot to the floor.
In my mind. It's also partly a lack of organisation, a lack of will and a lack of willingness to do anything. A lot of gamers are very lazy. In my experience. Too many would rather sit back and complain on dakka, rather than be proactive and change the games they play, and how they play their games. And to try different ways of doing things. Which feeds into the 'but it's different to how we play, so it's wrong and cannot work' mentality that you see sometimes.
This comment fits in perfectly with my previous one. While your way of playing is okay and simply different, those who play in a manner unlike yours are lazy and lack willingness to try new things. They are wrong, while you are simply choosing a different approach. In a way, competitive players are like the conservatives of the gaming world. They believe that if you are not having fun, it is your fault because you didn't step up. You are poor because you want to be poor, and thus you deserve it. It's karma. But it could be that competitive gamers are the ones not willing to try new things, and their inability to play anything but competitive games at their peak proficiency is what makes the game feel lacking.
As reading comprehension goes, you've resd me completely wrong.
My way of playing is casual, and competitive. I play a lot of different wargames with a lot of different people. Those who play different are not 'lazy and lack willingness to try new things'. they are not 'wrong'. The only was of doing it 'wrong' is to play a game you don't enjoy, but then do nothing about said lack of enjoyment and just complain. Thsts what I was getting at. Being 'proactive' is a solution. Ironically though, it is your fault when you don't step up(ie when you're not happy, but yet do nothing and just complain) and take control of your hobby to make it into something you enjoy. Ultimately, you are the one responsible for your own happiness. Whether that means finding a new group, a new game, or house ruling what you play to mould the games you play into what you want them to be.
I personally don't see competitive players as being conservatives. Like I said, I've seen plenty casual players with the same attitude, refusing to try anything different, refusing to change anything to make their games better, a total inability to appreciate,vor hostile reaction to an alternative viewpoint, and just whining and moaning. I used to be that way.
Well it doesn't sound any different,vor offer anything different to any other wargame that I know, or play to be fair. positioning being important. Ok... Never seen thst before... Terrain and manoeuvre. Ok... Gasp! Why hasn't this been Done?
I'm not aware of many wargames in which you can literally not move near opponents. Even charges can fail when you roll ones. This makes positioning a dominant strategy of area control - in a way, the units become moving, impassable terrain that you can use to shape the battlefield, and the ONLY way to pass them is to engage them in battle to remove them altogether. I think a lot of players, yourself included, are greatly underestimating how much the zone of control around models changes how the battles must be fought.
The idea of using clever positioning to threaten and control the board and deny your opponent manoevre and movement options and shaping the battlefield isn't really new to aos. As to engaging them or removing (shooting) them to remove them, yes that's generally the 'go to' solution. I'd be doing that anyway. Axe to face and all thst. Hardly radical.
Sqorgar wrote:Plumbumbarum quoting the opening post of this thread with the one word response, "No" is childish.
Yes I just couldn't resist seeing a wall of text of such magnitude being such a spin with so much wrong. Did you take it as some kind of vicious attack btw? Because I just found it funny and had no intent of belitling the poster or sth and would elaborate if someone picked it up. In the end it's not much diferent than stating "I disagree with all the points made by the fine gentleman" just in the hilarious (at least for my childish mind) way.
Rest of your post was crap btw. Arbitrary defining attitudes as childish when in fact it's the children that take critique of their favourite things the hardest and point could be made that you're most childish man around. Then whining about whining makes you a whiner too heh. Last but not least, it's not like you want to "just discuss AoS", many of those threads contain hard statements that the game is just as good or better than sth else and then you act suprised and outraged that people discuss those claims? What do you want, a positive or gtfo nodfest? Apply to GW then, you seem to have just the right attitude.
Btw what you and Age of Splendid brigade describe as "AoS hate" or a mission to ruin it for people or being bent on that or sth is not in my case. I don't hate it, I just see it for what it is.
Played AoS once a month or two ago, against a mate who I play with regularly and with some other people at the club sitting in watching. Can honestly say I've no real interest in playing it again. It fun enough but pretty shallow and with no real hold to it. Other being "by GW", I suppose.
bob82ca wrote: The original post is made by a full time game designer.......
I don't know if I can believe any sort of professional game designer would promote the AOS game. Or feel that it has any sort of good game design structure. As it turns out, I am also a professional game designer of sorts (computer and mobile games).
Not sure if that counts but I can tell you that you sure as hell would never design any computer game like you would AOS.
I have only been on the periphery of video games design, but I have watched one of our tabletop games being ported over to the screen and, as I am sure you are aware, there are things you would do with one that you would never do with the other. On a video game, for example, you can make very complex calculations that do not belong anywhere near the tabletop, as the computer can take the strain. You can also readily do hidden movement without it being a pain in the backside. On the other hand, computer games (at the moment) cannot come close to the scope possible with tabletop games (only limit imagination, etc).
For instance I watched a battle report from 1+ armor guys, and despite their efforts to balance 2 lists, 1 army destroyed the other convincingly. Any ways, the guys just laughed about it, made some jokes about how broken AOS is
To be fair, we have all seen games of 40k or Fantasy Battle that have turned out that way!
bob82ca wrote: Someone mentioned earlier, that if AOS was so good than why are so many people complaining about it. And this I can tell you is so right on!
How many people make complaints about 40k or Fantasy Battle?
This is how I understand the full extent of tactics in AOS:
I am by no means attacking you when I say this but... you have not yet understood the game.
Let me explain
There is a great deal more depth to the actual gameplay (forget the background at the moment, that is another thing) than people are giving AoS credit for, possibly because they are taking one look at the four page rules and not trying them out. I cannot stress that last part enough, you have to actually playAoS (more than once!) before things start to shine through. There have been an awful lot of gamers who have taken the position that just because they have x number of decades of gaming under their belt, they can glance at a set of rules and instantly tell whether tactics are inherent in them or not.
That is a colossal amount of hubris. I have been a tabletop gamer for 30-odd years, doing full-time design for 15, and freelance for another 5 years before that - and I would not be so quick to judge.
To use an example from your field (and please remember, I am not in your field!), imagine people turning up their noses at a game because it has foul graphics and just writing it off. You come along and see that the designer has actually come up with a superb level of gameplay.
Maybe you have just found Tetris (again, I am not in your field, another game might be more appropriate as an example!).
Yes, to hit and to wound is set in AoS (sort of) but consider that, for a moment, an aid to simplicity - it is not where the tactical choices are made in the game (and, as someone above pointed out, there was really not that much variation in Fantasy Battle when it came to hitting - there were three possible numbers, one of which you almost never used).
The tactics (and the real gems of this game) come through in a) unit synergies, which are much more powerful than they were in Fantasy Battle and b) you'll like this (!) the Movement phase. The zones of control in AoS are important and will dictate the flow of battle. How you set units up and the formations they adopt is also a very powerful tool. If you combine those two, you will force your opponent to go where you want him to, rather than wander the battlefield as he sees fit. Add in the synergies possible between units, and you can rapidly get into quite a complex position, but you are doing so with very, very simple rules.
It is going to be a long time before anyone can say they are good at this game because, at the moment, it is possible that no one really understands it (I certainly have not got a handle on everything possible - nowhere near it).
All of that is a tabletop designer's dream.
At the end of the day, the game's foundation either grabs you or it doesn't, and if it doesn't, that is cool, there are plenty of other games out there (try Judge Dredd, it is really very good ). However, if your issues with AoS are based solely on a perceived lack of tactics alone, I would urge you to try it - not just once, but over a series of games, using the various scenarios that have appeared (and not just a 'standard' set up clash with the core rules alone!).
You will begin to see the depth, I promise. It is there, lying just under a veneer of simplicity.
So I turn up with fifty greatswords, he turns up with fifty peasants. No loopholes. No exploitation. An intent on both parties to play a 'friendly enjoyable game'. You can't say either is wrong. ... It goes back to defining what the components are in a 'friendly enjoyable game'. Everyone has a different answer.
The only way Age of Sigmar works is if the person who brings 50 greatswords goes, "Oh, these guys are way better than your 50 peasants. I'll just take 40 of them away, and give it a whirl. Sound good?"
The balancing system of AoS works like this: 1) Which army do we think is more powerful? 2) What do we have to remove to make it equally powerful to the other army? 3) No consensus? No game.
If you can't do that, then AoS will not work RAW. More to the point, if potentially lopsided battles interest you, the game will suck unless there's a group that has some kind of comp system, because a lot of the people who are attracted to AoS will just not play a 2nd game with you... maybe not even a first game, and then what's the point?
Since it's really easy to see that someone who wants to build and field a really powerful army might have trouble finding pickup games if their local AoS scene is of the, "play the models I like" or "play my 50 peasants" meta, most likely, the person who enjoys building and fielding really powerful armies will just not invest in AoS... since they'd never get to pay their really powerful army.
Which is really okay, IMO because in whatever game that they are happy in, the fella who really wants to play his 50 peasants or his 50 models grabbed off the shelf chosen without thought to synerg... well, he, is probably not going to be very happy in that game either, and more likely than not, isn't going to provide the opponent with a very challenging or interesting game.
Zones of control and synergy, things that 100 other games do as well except better.
And yes 40k recieves lot of critique and whfb recieved a lot as well because both are deeply flawed rulesets. AoS is 10 times worse so it recieves even more.
The only way Age of Sigmar works is if the person who brings 50 greatswords goes, "Oh, these guys are way better than your 50 peasants. I'll just take 40 of them away, and give it a whirl. Sound good?"
That is not the only way it works, not by a long shot.
50 Greatswords go marching into a forest. They get ambushed by Peasants who have the advantage of deployment, bows, first turn, increased cover and you add a greater vulnerability to the Greatswords.
That could very easily work. And that is a scenario already in the game.
Or how about 10 Greatswords start on the table, and they need to fend off the Peasant mob long enough for their 40 mates to arrive and mince the rebellion. That is the very first scenario of the first hardback.
Do neither of those strike you as potentially awesome games?
I am not ragging on you, but what looks like a mis-match can very easily end up in a good game whose outcome is not obvious.
The only way Age of Sigmar works is if the person who brings 50 greatswords goes, "Oh, these guys are way better than your 50 peasants. I'll just take 40 of them away, and give it a whirl. Sound good?"
Let's not move the goalposts again.
Is his intent a 'fun' or 'friendly enjoyable' game though with his greatswords - yes, or no?
Because right now, he is being judged as 'selfish" on the simple fact that he is bringing fifty greatswords. Is the fact that he has to change his entire playbook to accomodate and enable another person, when the other guy just sits there doing nothing and expectis to be placated ok? Surely he is s as 'selfish" as greatsword guy because he expects his way to be accommodated above that of the other guys.
And you are partly wrong in stating the 'only' way is for greatswords guy to acquiesce. Why is the obligation that greatswords guy 'plays down'? Because otherwise he is 'selfish'? Really? Surely, peasant guy is just as equally obligated to change his list to accommodate greatswords guy, and maybe bring fifty peasants and thirty men at arms to the game?
Edit: and what matt said. Scenario can be designed to accomodate a mismatch. Good suggestions there, you could also give the peasants an 'unending wave' rule if you fancied a last stand against overwhelming odds.
(Although to be fair matt, none of these are aos things)
That could very easily work. And that is a scenario already in the game.
Not as you describe. You have to modify the scenario so that it becomes that way.
Or how about 10 Greatswords start on the table, and they need to fend off the Peasant mob long enough for their 40 mates to arrive and mince the rebellion. That is the very first scenario of the first hardback.
You are aware that means he will actually play with only 10 Greatswords the whole game? The other "40 mates" will just be in the background, that's all. Unless you add special rules to the original scenario - which is, again, something the players will come to.
And yes, all of those can become great games. But none can be played with the core rules/additionnal scenarios in the hardback books alone. Players have to add their own contribution to the rules as well. Which means AoS, alone, can't be playable. You MUST add some rules with the agreement of your opponent so that it becomes interesting.
In a way, players do the job of a game designer and they still keep buying models. That's why some people say GW is lazy with AoS - which is obviously not true.
I can see the philosophy behind...but it can be dangerous on the long term for professional game designers. After all, if the players don't really need the rules they make to play...why playing their games at all? Why not just make your own game, with your own material? After all, if you have to put time and work on the rules alone so that it can be interesting to play no matter what, you could as well do it to the very end; scrap everything and beginning anew, making another game.
And then professionnal game designers won't be needed anymore.
Of course, it's a caricature. But still...the question would be interesting to ask for the future of GW Game Designers. Are they still needed, in the end? Instead of Games Workshop, shouldn't it be called Warhammer Collectors? Wouldn't a few rules so that you can play with your precious models on a casual game just be enough?
@MongooseMatt - That's fair enough. I actually have no idea what a peasant or greatsword can do. But, you could replace greatsword with, say 50 greater demons. I will happily confess that I have only read warscrolls of a couple of factions, and have no interest in the non-superheroic or non-superdemonic forces. I am an admitted HeroHammer fan. The closer to demigodhood of the models the better
@Deadnight - no, I'm not moving goalposts at all. I'm saying that as the peasant player, this is all I got. If you can field something that makes it a good, fair game, let's play -- you don't, we can't. The only time I'll be mad is if you trick me into thinking there's parity when you know there isn't, in which case I won't like you so much.
Just put it in a point system, if you want. Player 1 shows up with 50 points of models, player 2 shows up with 800 points of models. In order to play, player 2 must play with a subset of their collection. Sure, you might get Thermopylae scenarios, but these are edge cases, and generally not what a player 2 is looking for in a pickup.
The only real difference is that AoS recognizes that points are a poor representation of fairness, but are often used as a justification of fairness. As MongooseMatt put it, the scenario can further unbalance the armies, making points an even worse metric for judging fairness.
The side effect of this, as the OP puts it is that army design becomes de-emphasized. I mean, feel free to disagree with me. It's just that I see a lot people playing and having fun with AoS who put about 1% of the thought that input into my 40k lists into their AoS list. I mean, I have literally spent thousands of hours imagining and planning 40k armies; Other than a couple of old WHFB players, I can't imagine that of most of the AoS players I've run into so far. Maybe it's just my area, but I thing AoS is just attractive to people who consider listbuilding a stressor.
@Sarouan - I actually really like the design philosophy of AoS: really simple mechanics that are fun; complex rules in the warscrolls that you only have to read exhaustively of you want to be competitive. A revenue model based on sales of what are essentially campaign modules.
It's not really much different than the profit model for AD&D (plus models) - sure, you could have just bought PH, DMG and MM, but the reality is, a lot of players bought modules and additional books/supplements because thinking of your own awesome stories and adventures is not easy to do. Plus, reading through stuff campaign materials is a lot like just reading fiction. If you get invested in the plot, you want to keep going and find out what will happen next.
Talys wrote: Maybe it's just my area, but I thing AoS is just attractive to people who consider listbuilding a stressor.
I don't think that's true. Even on this forum, you can see people building lists for AoS - be them themed or optimized, whatever.
They just don't use point system to build them. Can be wounds, can be something else, can even be a list of the models they want to play on the table.
That's the same for me, I have a list of Stormcast Eternals I would like to play. It's not based on anything else than just the list of models I would like to add so that it feels "awesome" on the table.
Of course, my gamer side is always telling me such and such unit would be indeed more effective in a specific role/against a particular opponent, but hey, I'll just have to convince my opponent than having his 20 bloodreavers would be nice against my stormbolt judicator crossbowmen.
You are aware that means he will actually play with only 10 Greatswords the whole game? The other "40 mates" will just be in the background, that's all. Unless you add special rules to the original scenario - which is, again, something the players will come to.
Umm, I think we are looking at two different books - this is the AoS Hardback, Hold or Die, page 143. The 40 other guys arrive in Turn Two.
I can see the philosophy behind...but it can be dangerous on the long term for professional game designers. After all, if the players don't really need the rules they make to play...why playing their games at all?.
Of course, it's a caricature. But still...the question would be interesting to ask for the future of GW Game Designers. Are they still needed, in the end? Instead of Games Workshop, shouldn't it be called Warhammer Collectors? Wouldn't a few rules so that you can play with your precious models on a casual game just be enough?
Answering seriously - yes. You chaps need us to provide a framework (and to do the grunt work you would rather not do, such as build whole worlds).
I'll put that another way.. You want us to provide a framework. And because we have some small skill in putting together something that works.
Talys wrote: @MongooseMatt - That's fair enough. I actually have no idea what a peasant or greatsword can do. But, you could replace greatsword with, say 50 greater demons..
Ignoring for the moment that 50 greater daemons is so unlikely that I might be tempted to ignore it for design purposes I would say either a) give me a tick and I'll come up with a scenario to make that work or b) you can obviously find unwinnable mis-matches in any Warhammer. In 40k, for just one example, you can build an army (guys inside Land Raiders) that another army simply cannot touch because of the AV involved. It is not likely someone would take to the field without keeping Land Raiders in mind, but you might not have to travel far to find such a combo.
Complete mis-matches are not unheard of by any means. At the low end, you can have a game system where objectives are more important than killing (both 40k and AoS do this well). At the very high end (the guy who always brings two Warhounds or 50 Greater Daemons to a pick up match), damn his eyes and move on. If you did have a system to handle his armies, is he really the kind of guy you want to play?
Okay, now you got me going There was a post on this forum about an AoS tournament whereby a guy bought a tomb swarm and tried to win by avoiding the game entirely. Now, he got things wrong (these chaps are not always the bushiest brush in the box), but that attitude stinks.
You have a guy who wants to win by not actually playing the game. He wants the win and is not interested in actually playing - he has not given one fig of a thought for his opponent and their fun. What a complete and total twot.
Ah ha, someone says, but he only did that to prove the game does not work! The problem is, he did that at the expense of other people. What a complete twot.
And those using Kairos with Skaven to claim victories ion the first turn? They are twots too.
To go back to your 50 greater daemon example, I don't think GW are writing games for that 0.5% and, honestly, I agree with them. Bring your 50 greater daemons along, by all means, if you have also come up with a scenario that makes them fun for all concerned.
If you have just brought them along to win, go and sit in the corner with Tomb Swarm Guy and Two Warhounds Pickup Game Guy.
For the rest of us? By all means bring along your 50 Greatswords and I'll field my 50 Peasants - we will have a great game even though it is a mis-match. The game can handle it with scenarios printed in the books just fine.
@Deadnight - no, I'm not moving goalposts at all. I'm saying that as the peasant player, this is all I got. If you can field something that makes it a good, fair game, let's play -- you don't, we can't. The only time I'll be mad is if you trick me into thinking there's parity when you know there isn't, in which case I won't like you so much.
Except... Yes you are. thats three questions I've raised that you've not tried to answer, and then attempted to shuffle the conversation off to somewhere else.
And Fifty greatswords is all I got. But it's on me to accomodate and sacrifice in order to enable you in order to make it 'a good fair game'. And you have to do nothing in turn. Gee thanks. And I'm the selfish one?!
Again, why must I take a subset of my army to face yours? You described this as the 'only' solution. You were wrong. There are other options. Take other stuff, borrow stuff, alter the scenario(matt had some cool ideas) etc. which youve just tried to handwave away. which goes back to the point raised that 'competitive players are selfish'. Which was also shown to be a skewed narrative. Peasant player is equally selfish in wanting the game on his terms, instead of acquiescing, either entirely (not needed) or in part (which would be appreciated) to find some kind of a common ground. Instead greatswords guy has to acqueiesce entirely for the other guy to enable him.
I've played every game wizkids put out, played magic, play the aliesn versus predator tcg, and I spend about 30 hours a month playing tabletop rpgs of one sort. I joined dakkadakka because it was an internet community for a game I happened to enjoy, I get enough random talk about my other games to not need an outside group to converse with.
Playing AoS >>> reading the rules, being mad and thinking you know everything.
The lack of set points values is kind of like street hockey.
When my group would show up, if we had only one fully geared goaltender, we'd usually put the net down on the other side (so it's harder to score on), play posts on that side, or make do with the one goalie against the most elite small team on the other side, which could be a fun challenge.
We figured out balance by ourselves because we just wanted to play the game. There was no one who refused to come to an agreement about what would be a fun game.
"You don't have a set number of points for each player and balanced teams before you show up! That'll never work!!!"
Maybe not if you entered a street hockey tournament, with defined rules. But for street hockey with friends or new groups or anyone casual, you don't list-build beforehand.
Talys wrote: The only real difference is that AoS recognizes that points are a poor representation of fairness, but are often used as a justification of fairness.
It IS a poor representation of fairness, but I don't think AoS makes any claims on the matter at all. I don't think that the lack of constraints is a commentary on the nature of constraints itself, except that by not adopting an official one, more variety becomes possible (wound count, keywords, model count, collection size, physical weight, deployment zone size, etc).
For instance, one constraint could be that you bring 100 models, but you have to play successive opponents only with the models that survive. Any casualties are removed from future games. Then, if a player puts all his eggs in one basket, he could go up against an army that is particularly strong against that one army type and get decimated. Then diversity becomes much, much more important, as well as potentially NOT fielding certain strong units against opponents that could potentially destroy them.
That's cool. That's an intriguing afternoon. And AoS doesn't say you can't do that. It doesn't explicitly advocate for the idea, but by offering nothing that conflicts with it, it allows players to adopt unique playing styles.
The side effect of this, as the OP puts it is that army design becomes de-emphasized. I mean, feel free to disagree with me. It's just that I see a lot people playing and having fun with AoS who put about 1% of the thought that input into my 40k lists into their AoS list. I mean, I have literally spent thousands of hours imagining and planning 40k armies; Other than a couple of old WHFB players, I can't imagine that of most of the AoS players I've run into so far. Maybe it's just my area, but I thing AoS is just attractive to people who consider listbuilding a stressor.
I don't think that army design is de-emphasized, just that players do not yet understand the boundaries of gameplay yet, and thus can not make informed decisions about army design. That really bothers some people, so they avoid the game, leaving only the people who it doesn't bother behind to enjoy the game.
I think, just based on my initial experiences with the game, that shooty units, smashy units, heroes, monsters, and wizards all have very unique capabilities that encourage bringing at least one of each into each battle. The problem for most people is that AoS doesn't put limitations on how many figures are in a unit, or how many units you can bring, or even what a good relative army size would be (other than 100 models being an afternoon's worth of a game). What if I brought 5 wizards? What if I summoned the entire inventory of GW demons? What if I had a unit of Liberators that had 50 guys in it?
I think some of these questions MIGHT BE answered within the gameplay itself - especially if you use the terrain and sudden death rules. Bringing a unit of 50 liberators may prove especially disadvantageous on a battlefield with a lot of terrain, for example. Because of unit cohesion rules (which are pretty strict, by AoS's standard), they are less mobile and able to move that giant mass of soldiers effectively around the battlefield. A large unit could be near multiple pieces of terrain simultaneously, thus gaining several disadvantages from the terrain rules. Tight quarters favor the attackers, as the number of attacks is based on how many models are in melee range, but the damage is distributed throughout the entire unit. At that point, the extra models are just hitpoints, unable to actually engage in combat except to soak up wounds. Large units are also susceptible to being attacked by multiple enemies simultaneously, increasing the wounds inflicted, and making the unit susceptible to battle shock losses. These are just theories. I've never tried it. But I'd be interested to hear if any of these effects matter and how much.
I think that, right now, we don't really know what the effects of all those weird edge cases are because people aren't bothering to try it out. They say, 50 Liberators? You must be mad. But I wonder if maybe the way unit movement and engagement works, if there isn't an optimal size for an army and its units just based on table factors. I think the people who purposely ignore sudden death or terrain on a "doesn't seem like it works" level may end up doing themselves a disservice.
So I don't think we know the full extent of possibilities in the game, and I'm all for people trying out those really weird edge cases like 50 greatswords versus 50 peasants. Theoretically, based on how other wargames work, that shouldn't work. But maybe that's missing something important. It's worth trying, at least once, to see what happens. Maybe it doesn't work, but having tried it, we'll know for sure why it didn't, and can plan future engagements accordingly.
So yeah, I think AoS's problem is that everybody already assumes they know how everything will work out based on how simple the rules initially appear. It's weird to see theoretical discussions about a game, from people who've never played it, using their imaginary results as conclusive proof that AoS is broken and stupid.
Answering seriously - yes. You chaps need us to provide a framework (and to do the grunt work you would rather not do, such as build whole worlds).
I'll put that another way.. You want us to provide a framework. And because we have some small skill in putting together something that works.
I agree with you on that matter. About AoS, the question that is sometimes burning would be; is AoS framework enough on the long term? And does that framework fully suit their playing base? If players keep making their own rules each on their side, wouldn't it be telling us the core rules/scenarios aren't enough for them?
But I believe the answer can really come in the following months (maybe years?). The game is still new, we don't know everything about its universe (far from it!) and a lot of models that should be "sigmarised" aren't here. After all, What does a Fyreslayer look like? Are Aelfs at the time of the Realmgates really the same than Dark/Wood/High Elves from WFB? Didn't the Orruks and Grots change over the time as well? What happened to the human tribes that manage to survive uncorrupted by the Chaos meanwhile?
So many questions and not enough books able to answer.
Plumbumbarum wrote: Being mad is great and surely beats playing that boring simpleton, also you don't have to know everything to know obvious things like the quality of AoS.
We do similar things with football. But both football and hockey have established rules for a fair game that you can ignore if you want to. AoS kind of skips that part lol.
You're just going to respond negatively to every single thing said.
AoS has similar base rules to street hockey and is just as easy to "house rule."
I agree with you on that matter. About AoS, the question that is sometimes burning would be; is AoS framework enough on the long term?
An excellent question. And one I think you answer well here;
Sarouan wrote: But I believe the answer can really come in the following months (maybe years?). The game is still new, we don't know everything about its universe (far from it!)
You hit the nail on the head. Neither 40k nor the Old World hit the streets fully realised. It takes time to build and develop a fully living, breathing setting. I do think a lot of the issues people have with the background simply won't be a factor in 3 or 4 years time.
For example, suppose 40k had only just been released. There are people who would be having a field day with the term 'Space Marines' and yet we are all very, very comfortable with it now. Same with their squads. Tactical Squads? What, so they do tactics? Devastators? Well, that is a bit obvious isn't it, they just blow stuff up?
People get used to naming conventions over time.
Certainly though, we have only seen a tiny, tiny glimpse of what AoS will be offering.
Sarouan wrote: And does that framework fully suit their playing base?
Another good question, which digs up the question of what their player base is. The rumour on the outside (and the skinny on the inside) is that Fantasy just was not making the bread. Running my own gaming company, I can well understand that - you have a number of very dedicated players, but they are not buying enough to keep the line going, so you have to cut it. It is painful, people will act as though you have shot their dog, but it has to be done.
I think AoS will be creating its own player base from strands of existing ones and maybe, just maybe (so GW hopes, I presume) with some new blood as well. Whether that new base is sustainable or not only time will tell - however, the word going round at the moment is that if it is not, Fantasy will be cut altogether. AoS is Fantasy's last chance.
Sarouan wrote: If players keep making their own rules each on their side, wouldn't it be telling us the core rules/scenarios aren't enough for them?
Hmmm....
You could see it that way, and it would be an indication that GW can make some hay by exploring these areas on a commercial level.
However.
As a games designer, I would be ecstatic if this became widespread in one of my games. It would demonstrate that players were engaged in the game and its background to a far, far higher degree than most miniatures game enjoy, and that their emotional investment in it was sky high. If that could also be capitalised on commercially, I would call it a huge win-win.
It seems to work perfectly well for RPGs, after all...
That's an interesting point of view, MongooseMatt. I agree with most of your points; it's clear AoS is a brand new game and that a lot of new models will have to follow.
As a games designer, I would be ecstatic if this became widespread in one of my games. It would demonstrate that players were engaged in the game and its background to a far, far higher degree than most miniatures game enjoy, and that their emotional investment in it was sky high. If that could also be capitalised on commercially, I would call it a huge win-win.
It seems to work perfectly well for RPGs, after all...
Most players that use house rules usually do that at home - sometimes they show it up on the Internet or something alike, but since it's usually for a very targeted pleasure (I mean, his opponent's and his own), that's not something they always think to share with others.
The same goes with RPG. It tends to stay in their own gaming circles - because that's something usually suited to them alone. Sure, you can find unique scenarios on the Web, but how many are left in the head of their creators and their gaming group? I believe it's far much more.
However, the main difference between a wargame and a RPG is that in a RPG, you have someone who can act as a "judge/neutral party"; the Game Master. He's the arbiter and true story teller, so he can be recognized as someone "who is right to change things" by the other players.
But that's not the same for a competitive game opposing two players - and that's what wargames are usually at the core. You can't ask the players to always have a Game Master for all of their games at AoS so that everything is fair for the sides involved.
So, giving RPG features to a wargame seems to be an ambitious idea. But I think there is a significative risk to assume that something working for a true RPG can work for a tabletop miniature wargame.
Again, we will see if it was a genius idea or an utter failure in the future. And yes, I also believe AoS is the last chance for Warhammer Fantasy Battle. There was definitely something to do, we just have to know if what was done was really the right answer.
We've gone from having less than 1 game of WFB played in the store each week, (usually 0), to a couple of dozen games of Age of Sigmar. 2/3 of the players are fairly new to playing with GW fantasy models. The others have all been playing on the GT circuit for 8th before that sort of wound down.
We aren't really having too many problems with rules. And just using AZYR for points. A vast improvement as far as people playing games in the shop. 8 years ago I would have had 10-15 people in twice a week for WFB and pick up games with monthly tournaments. It fell a long way.
However, the main difference between a wargame and a RPG is that in a RPG, you have someone who can act as a "judge/neutral party"; the Game Master. He's the arbiter and true story teller, so he can be recognized as someone "who is right to change things" by the other players.
But that's not the same for a competitive game opposing two players - and that's what wargames are usually at the core. You can't ask the players to always have a Game Master for all of their games at AoS so that everything is fair for the sides involved.
There's nothing in the rules that explicitly forbids a Game Master, and in fact, the scenario-heavy play may benefit from it. Just like I don't think AoS is explicitly competitive, I don't think it is explicitly not competitive either. It could be that a Game Master, more than points, is something that helps AoS thrive as a competitive game.
And you probably wouldn't need Game Masters for every game. For friendly games with no stakes, just invoke the Most Important Rule to resolve disputes. For competitive games in a competitive environment with actual stakes, it's not absurd to ask for a neutral third party judge. Am I wrong in assuming that most tournaments have judges of some sort in a rules arbitrator position, acting as Game Masters as far as fairness goes?
Indeed Age of Sigmar is ambitious because at its core it challenges the modern concept of what a wargame is, the same as in the early 90s when the concept of wargames moved from narrative storytelling devices or reenactments to full blown tournament style competitions.
agnosto wrote: a company can not change a primary product without expecting people who have a vested interest in that product to be upset and feeling disaffected.
Why not? Pepsi changes their formula all the time. BK is no longer flame-grilled. McD is all microwaves now, and NOBODY CARES.
For the tiny % who care about Coke, you can get Mexican Cokes made with sugar.
McDonalds has been losing money like crazy, and the number one reason cited by customers is the quality of their food... Compare that to other fast food chains which are still showing in the positive.
I asked my parents about New Coke as I wasn't really old enough at the time to form an opinion of it, and they mentioned they actually stopped buying it, as did all their friends, then they began buying it again when Coke reverted.
auticus wrote: Indeed Age of Sigmar is ambitious because at its core it challenges the modern concept of what a wargame is, the same as in the early 90s when the concept of wargames moved from narrative storytelling devices or reenactments to full blown tournament style competitions.
I've been trying to stay out of AoS discussions because I'd thought I'd finally reached the point where I had said what I wanted to and didn't want to become a broken record, but this is so wrong it's not even funny.
Talys wrote: The only real difference is that AoS recognizes that points are a poor representation of fairness, but are often used as a justification of fairness.
It IS a poor representation of fairness, but I don't think AoS makes any claims on the matter at all. I don't think that the lack of constraints is a commentary on the nature of constraints itself, except that by not adopting an official one, more variety becomes possible (wound count, keywords, model count, collection size, physical weight, deployment zone size, etc).
For instance, one constraint could be that you bring 100 models, but you have to play successive opponents only with the models that survive. Any casualties are removed from future games. Then, if a player puts all his eggs in one basket, he could go up against an army that is particularly strong against that one army type and get decimated. Then diversity becomes much, much more important, as well as potentially NOT fielding certain strong units against opponents that could potentially destroy them.
That's cool. That's an intriguing afternoon. And AoS doesn't say you can't do that. It doesn't explicitly advocate for the idea, but by offering nothing that conflicts with it, it allows players to adopt unique playing styles.
Yes, I agree.
Sqorgar wrote: I don't think that army design is de-emphasized, just that players do not yet understand the boundaries of gameplay yet, and thus can not make informed decisions about army design. That really bothers some people, so they avoid the game, leaving only the people who it doesn't bother behind to enjoy the game.
Spoiler:
I think, just based on my initial experiences with the game, that shooty units, smashy units, heroes, monsters, and wizards all have very unique capabilities that encourage bringing at least one of each into each battle. The problem for most people is that AoS doesn't put limitations on how many figures are in a unit, or how many units you can bring, or even what a good relative army size would be (other than 100 models being an afternoon's worth of a game). What if I brought 5 wizards? What if I summoned the entire inventory of GW demons? What if I had a unit of Liberators that had 50 guys in it?
I think some of these questions MIGHT BE answered within the gameplay itself - especially if you use the terrain and sudden death rules. Bringing a unit of 50 liberators may prove especially disadvantageous on a battlefield with a lot of terrain, for example. Because of unit cohesion rules (which are pretty strict, by AoS's standard), they are less mobile and able to move that giant mass of soldiers effectively around the battlefield. A large unit could be near multiple pieces of terrain simultaneously, thus gaining several disadvantages from the terrain rules. Tight quarters favor the attackers, as the number of attacks is based on how many models are in melee range, but the damage is distributed throughout the entire unit. At that point, the extra models are just hitpoints, unable to actually engage in combat except to soak up wounds. Large units are also susceptible to being attacked by multiple enemies simultaneously, increasing the wounds inflicted, and making the unit susceptible to battle shock losses. These are just theories. I've never tried it. But I'd be interested to hear if any of these effects matter and how much.
I think that, right now, we don't really know what the effects of all those weird edge cases are because people aren't bothering to try it out. They say, 50 Liberators? You must be mad. But I wonder if maybe the way unit movement and engagement works, if there isn't an optimal size for an army and its units just based on table factors. I think the people who purposely ignore sudden death or terrain on a "doesn't seem like it works" level may end up doing themselves a disservice.
So I don't think we know the full extent of possibilities in the game, and I'm all for people trying out those really weird edge cases like 50 greatswords versus 50 peasants. Theoretically, based on how other wargames work, that shouldn't work. But maybe that's missing something important. It's worth trying, at least once, to see what happens. Maybe it doesn't work, but having tried it, we'll know for sure why it didn't, and can plan future engagements accordingly.
So yeah, I think AoS's problem is that everybody already assumes they know how everything will work out based on how simple the rules initially appear. It's weird to see theoretical discussions about a game, from people who've never played it, using their imaginary results as conclusive proof that AoS is broken and stupid.
Again, I agree with you. There is the potential to build greatly synergistic and highly efficient armies within Age of Sigmar. However, by stripping the game of a points based constraint system, it's no longer possible to capitalize on such efficiencies, except if players create their own balancing system.
There is a burning desire within many gamers to be rewarded for good planning by having a leg up. This is one of reasons why Magic the Gathering is popular, after all, and not to be a hypocrite, I often fall into that category, though my reward is more cerebral than a desire to win; that is it's fun to think of and test such efficiencies, but not so much to play them more than once even if they work well. . By taking out the system, you shun such players -- because after all, if you play with your own balancing system, you may not have many / any play partners. The result is that GW (purposefully or not) is attracting a bunch of people who were unhappy with the point-based constraint systems.
Talys wrote: The result is that GW (purposefully or not) is attracting a bunch of people who were unhappy with the point-based constraint systems.
You say that like it is a bad thing
Yes, it is probably a big turn off for a lot of people. For my local group though it is what is drawing them into or getting them to return to Table Top Gaming.
I know I have a small group and to many this invalidates anything I say, but not a single one of us looked at AoS and thought that it was a 'Bad Game'. Now we all agree that it is not a 'Great Game' either.
It is what it says it is, a Game to have fun and kill a few hours with. That is how we look at it, nothing more nothing less. We will be squeezing it in between our normal games we play for when not everyone makes it or we are not in to mood to play more Complicated Games like WH40k, BattleTech. It is going into the rotation with our Munchkin, MLP: Card Game and soon to be Alpha Strike games.
@Anpu42 - I didn't mean it as a bad thing at all Or a good thing -- just an observation.
I think that AoS is a good game that has more mileage for some people than for me. But there will never, ever be a fantasy game that I like as much as Sci-Fi, because my preference is high-tech weaponry to magic and magical weaponry. 40k is has nearly all of my favorite game models because the guns in it are really cool
auticus wrote: Indeed Age of Sigmar is ambitious because at its core it challenges the modern concept of what a wargame is, the same as in the early 90s when the concept of wargames moved from narrative storytelling devices or reenactments to full blown tournament style competitions.
I've been trying to stay out of AoS discussions because I'd thought I'd finally reached the point where I had said what I wanted to and didn't want to become a broken record, but this is so wrong it's not even funny.
That's a very constructive post, thanks for contributing to the conversation.
whats the big deal? why cant people still just play 8th ediion fantasy? thats what my club does. heck they even have 10-12 people writing new stuff for fantasy. they made an entire sigmarine army book and its awesome!
Again, I agree with you. There is the potential to build greatly synergistic and highly efficient armies within Age of Sigmar. However, by stripping the game of a points based constraint system, it's no longer possible to capitalize on such efficiencies, except if players create their own balancing system.
Well, efficiency changes when the constraints change. An efficient list based on points may differ than an efficient list based on wounds, or keyword constraints, or even the number of models. I've seen all of these suggested. Warhammer World has an Age of Sigmar campaign where you can bring 100 models, but creates constraints by having you join either the Sigmar or Khorne team and awards the entire team for winning - meaning you need to design your list to fight in multiple realms against multiple opponents, and to contribute something to the team's efforts. There are most certainly better and worse ways to create army lists, depending on which constraints you adopt.
Again, points are not a balancing system. They are a scenario generator. The scenarios that are generated can be balanced, but most likely, one side is going to be more efficient at eking out power from the point limitation (sometimes, comically so).
There is a burning desire within many gamers to be rewarded for good planning by having a leg up.
And you can still have that. Every single one of these systems, from scenarios to points to warscrolls and keywords, imposes limitations on the game that can be minmaxed for greater reward. Just pick a system up front and you and your opponents can sate that burning desire through your good planning. If you require things remain official, GW is producing numerous open ended scenarios. Or you can adopt the various official, but not official systems (like Warhammer World's campaign). Or use something simple and obvious, such as number of models or wounds. Or you can find a popular, respected system like Azyr comp rules. Or heck, you could just go with no system at all and simply build your army at the table as a reaction to what your opponent is putting down, stopping when you feel like you've got a decent game ahead of you. The point is, you have options.
By taking out the system, you shun such players -- because after all, if you play with your own balancing system, you may not have many / any play partners. The result is that GW (purposefully or not) is attracting a bunch of people who were unhappy with the point-based constraint systems.
I do not particularly hate or love points. They are what they are, and sometimes, that's a lot of fun. But I'm more excited by the possibilities that exist beyond points, and how they can change games, possibly even improving them. By not placing points on a pedestal, those possibilities are becoming very real. I'm not familiar with 40k, but has anyone ever suggested playing based on the number of wounds?
hanshotfirst wrote: whats the big deal? why cant people still just play 8th ediion fantasy? thats what my club does. heck they even have 10-12 people writing new stuff for fantasy. they made an entire sigmarine army book and its awesome!
I have no issue with that at all. In fact I see that as a good thing.
auticus wrote: Indeed Age of Sigmar is ambitious because at its core it challenges the modern concept of what a wargame is, the same as in the early 90s when the concept of wargames moved from narrative storytelling devices or reenactments to full blown tournament style competitions.
I've been trying to stay out of AoS discussions because I'd thought I'd finally reached the point where I had said what I wanted to and didn't want to become a broken record, but this is so wrong it's not even funny.
That's a very constructive post, thanks for contributing to the conversation.
You're quite welcome.
The fact is that AoS is only revolutionary if you've had your head stuck between the firm, unyielding butt cheeks of the past few editions of Fantasy and 40k.
AoS offers nothing new to the wargaming community. It is not forward thinking. It challenges nothing, apart from the patience of fans of previous editions that liked the rank and file game and were hoping that GW could finally turn their dying system around. It is like GHQ's Microarmor Tank rules - a relatively simple to learn, free game designed to let you play with the models you've bought.
Which is fine. People can play AoS and have fun with it. Go right ahead and do so. But don't put the game up on a pedestal and imagine that it'll be leading the charge to a bright new future of wargaming. Because if that's what you think, Kirby should change his name to Cardigan.
infinite_array wrote: It is like GHQ's Microarmor Tank rules - a relatively simple to learn, free game designed to let you play with the models you've bought.
Isn't that the entire point? A simple game designed to let us play the the toy soldiers we've bought. And being free, doesn't that make everything better?
For the first time, I legally "own" all of the GW content for an entire GW battles game system.
Yeah, but that doesn't "challenge the modern concept of what a wargame is" - and it'd take a very long and probably pretty heated thread to figure out what the definition of "modern wargame" actually is.
And for owning all the GW content - you've bought both of the campaign books for AoS, and plan on continuing to buy them? Because, as far as I can tell, they do happen to have content in them that isn't available for free online, like the various Realm flavor rules, and scenarios.
auticus wrote: Indeed Age of Sigmar is ambitious because at its core it challenges the modern concept of what a wargame is, the same as in the early 90s when the concept of wargames moved from narrative storytelling devices or reenactments to full blown tournament style competitions.
I've been trying to stay out of AoS discussions because I'd thought I'd finally reached the point where I had said what I wanted to and didn't want to become a broken record, but this is so wrong it's not even funny.
That's a very constructive post, thanks for contributing to the conversation.
You're quite welcome.
The fact is that AoS is only revolutionary if you've had your head stuck between the firm, unyielding butt cheeks of the past few editions of Fantasy and 40k.
AoS offers nothing new to the wargaming community. It is not forward thinking. It challenges nothing, apart from the patience of fans of previous editions that liked the rank and file game and were hoping that GW could finally turn their dying system around. It is like GHQ's Microarmor Tank rules - a relatively simple to learn, free game designed to let you play with the models you've bought.
Which is fine. People can play AoS and have fun with it. Go right ahead and do so. But don't put the game up on a pedestal and imagine that it'll be leading the charge to a bright new future of wargaming. Because if that's what you think, Kirby should change his name to Cardigan.
I never said it was revolutionary, that I liked it, hated it, or anything in between, that was what you pulled from me using the word "ambitious". "Ambitious" is simply that - its an ambitious project that is our first litmus test into a mainstream game being designed and developed contrary to what tournament players would enjoy to see if it will carry itself or fall.
"Modern wargaming" is simply (to me) what [most every game designed in the past ten years or so does. Point values. Adhere to tournament standards. Cater to a tournament meta. In some cases, go out of your way to cater to a tournament meta.
That is my definition of a "modern wargame". GW has created something that goes against what pretty much every company out there today would have done. That's fairly "ambitious" to me. The dictionary defines one of the terms of ambitious to mean: (of a plan or piece of work) intended to satisfy high aspirations and therefore difficult to achieve. I'd say that pretty much is AoS in a nutshell. Nowhere does it say revolutionary, awesome, or anything else denoting positive or negative.
Gaslighting and saying that its bad, wrong, jammed up our own *** etc is all well and good.
When you say that AoS is doing the same as when miniature wargaming went from being narrative devices or reenactments to tournament focused, then that can be called revolutionary (which, by the way, means involving or causing a complete or dramatic change, if you want to play that game). And in the way you used "ambitious", it certainly had positive connotations.
I'll agree with you that most "mainstream" - nice job moving the goal posts, by the way - modern wargames uses points, and for good reasons. But I can really only think of one company that really goes out of its way to cater to a tournament atmosphere. What you call tournament standards, I call global standards. It means I can walk into a game store anywhere on the planet and potentially play a game without needing to sit down and hash out the community's house rules.
And there's a reason why mainsteam rulesets use points values and global standards - because, by and large, they work and foster the largest crowds of supporters for newer companies.
And speaking of gas lighting, exactly were did I say that you thought the game was awesome, or that the I thought the game was bad? I mean, I don't think it's great, but I've come around to the fact that people can and will have fun playing it, so trying to make them feel bad for doing so is a waste of tme.
However, I'm challenging your assertion that it's ambitious - instead, I see it as a by-product of GW following the mentality that it wants to sell miniatures first, and then worry about people actually using them.
Sqorgar wrote: I'm not familiar with 40k, but has anyone ever suggested playing based on the number of wounds?
In 40k, wounds as a constraint would not work at all, for a couple of reasons. First of all, the gear on a model can be (much) more expensive than the actual model. Second, most basic models are 1 wound, but they vary dramatically in performance. An infantryman with a 12" range weapon has 1 wound, and so does a guy on a jetbike whose weapon is way stronger and has twice as much range. Mobility is a huge factor in 40K and not reflected in wounds.
Finally, the damage resolution is much more complex than AoS. You have armor saves, cover saves, spell effects (like invisibility), invulnerable saves, and then a host of ways to ignore damage, plus ways to regenerate lost hit points. The point being, a Nagash size model with 6 wounds could take on 30 wounds worth of (some) infantry and literally stomp them all out of existence without taking any damage itself.
Basically, if the game were constrained to wounds, nobody would ever take infantry except heroes that are ultra-powerful or that provide some force multiplier benefit (like a mage-equivalent, for some great spell).
Automatically Appended Next Post: By the way, since everyone keeps talking about goalposts, what ARE these goalposts that are being moved?
The goalposts I would set are that:
1. AoS is appealing to some people as their favorite game, and to other people as an occasional game, and to a third group for models only.
2. That AoS can generate some profits from #1, at least to the extent of the failed WHFB franchise (in GW's estimation, based on profits) and to a point which justifies GE's continued investment in it, by way of models, campaigns and story.
I would stay away from characterizations of whether AoS' system is good or bad, because that's too subjective. But I would embrace evaluating the reasons why people like or dislike it.
infinite_array wrote: And there's a reason why mainsteam rulesets use points values and global standards - because, by and large, they work and foster the largest crowds of supporters for newer companies.
The simple fact of the matter is, the reason why points are so common is because these games all descend from the sources. The designers of 40k go off and make other games (Kings of War), or players of GW games become inspired by GW games (Imperial Assault is a direct descendant of Space Hulk), or they are based off similar ancestors (Warmachine is based of DnD, which itself was based off wargames like Chainmail).
Basically, there's a handful of mainstream wargaming companies that are so inbred when it comes to their talent and inspirations, that the family tree is pretty much a straight line. They aren't picking points because points are a superior option. They are picking points because that's what the last guy did, and that's how they are used to it. And the last guy used points because the guy before him did. Not having points is ambitious, not because past games didn't have points, but because someone is purposefully going in a different direction, deliberately trying to create a new branch of evolution for the entire genre.
There's actually this really good book called Playing at the World, which traces DnD's lineage back through Chainmail and the wargames that inspired them. It pretty much stops at Chainmail, but there's a bunch of really well researched and exhaustively documented material on the early wargaming communities and games. That's completely off topic, but it's a great book and I recommend it.
However, I'm challenging your assertion that it's ambitious - instead, I see it as a by-product of GW following the mentality that it wants to sell miniatures first, and then worry about people actually using them.
How is AoS anything but ambitious? To completely change the direction of your company, creating a non-standard work with unproven potential, and producing scores of content before even the first starter set is sold? That is ambitious. Next you are going to argue semantics on what the definition of 'is' is.
No... the setting has a lot to do with the use of points or not.
In a setting where the difference between a French musket and a British musket is minimal when dealing with thousands of troops, and that time period happens to have book after book, documentary after documentary and so on written about various battles and army organisation there is little need of points. Players can simply use their knowledge of the actual history and make scenarios.
The same goes for most historical games. Naval games too, air combat games, hunting games, zombie survival games and the list goes on. Not often in the real world is something OP or stupidly powerful, and if it is it is quickly countered. We also know/can make educated guesses about how warfare was on the past and all of that helps create a very nice system in which no points are needed. They also give plenty of tools for creating scenarios and tips on how.
How is AOS similar to other points free games out there? Well it isn't. There are demons, gods, monsters and magic etc... we kind of need a measurement of their rough ability to create a structured game. We don't have thesis, history books or experts to find answers on combat in the world of Age of Sigmar. We have nothing of real substance to create any real scenario unless you happen to have learned the game and put up with it.
See AOS is a game that is clearly written to use points, but just with no points present. Hence why the game has very bland/few scenarios. It contains nothing to help players forge the narrative. It does not have examples of scenarios played by the GW staff. It does not contains any fluff to help detail how war is conducted so you can try balance it out that way.
AOS is nothing new at all. I play ALOT of games with no points whenever I visit the clubs in the city. Plenty of games have no points value, AOS has no points and does it terribly. It is not revolutionary for doing something that has been done and is being done, again this game is only getting any kind of attention because of the big GW label on it.
Just because points based games are some of the big names out there doesn't mean that making a points less game that is worse than all the other games of the same style is revolutionary. It is simply stupid.
That Jervis guy plays Black Powder for example. Now that game is a good example of what a game without points can be. He could have simply used Black Powder as a basis to create AOS and we would have scenarios, a method of roughly calculating costs, a method of creating armies, tools to create your own troops, examples of what the studio guys do and more. The tools are in the rules. AOS gives you a points based game without points and tells you the bare minimum to play.
The only way it is revolutionary is because such a big company released such terrible rules (in my opinion the worst rule set I have encountered) and maybe what's more revolutionary is that it is so bad and people still try to like it. But I suspect those people have not played other games that do not use points and as a result find the process mind blowing.
infinite_array wrote: Yeah, but that doesn't "challenge the modern concept of what a wargame is" - and it'd take a very long and probably pretty heated thread to figure out what the definition of "modern wargame" actually is.
And for owning all the GW content - you've bought both of the campaign books for AoS, and plan on continuing to buy them? Because, as far as I can tell, they do happen to have content in them that isn't available for free online, like the various Realm flavor rules, and scenarios.
From the various threads, it's pretty obvious that a modern wargame is the very sort of mindless "X points battle" that Jervis decried in Citadel Journal over a decade ago. Yes, there are tweaks, but the core of the genre, as homogenized by market leading 40k and the variety of third party successors, doesn't deviate the pattern nearly as much as AoS does. At least in concept.
On the tabletop, AoS plays very similarly (and not coincidentally) to 40k, but without as much complexity. To that point, AoS can be seen as fulfilling GW's objectives of moving away from generic "X points battle" while still playing as GW thinks a battles game should.
The only way Age of Sigmar works is if the person who brings 50 greatswords goes, "Oh, these guys are way better than your 50 peasants. I'll just take 40 of them away, and give it a whirl. Sound good?"
Let's not move the goalposts again.
Is his intent a 'fun' or 'friendly enjoyable' game though with his greatswords - yes, or no?
Because right now, he is being judged as 'selfish" on the simple fact that he is bringing fifty greatswords. Is the fact that he has to change his entire playbook to accomodate and enable another person, when the other guy just sits there doing nothing and expectis to be placated ok? Surely he is s as 'selfish" as greatsword guy because he expects his way to be accommodated above that of the other guys.
And you are partly wrong in stating the 'only' way is for greatswords guy to acquiesce. Why is the obligation that greatswords guy 'plays down'? Because otherwise he is 'selfish'? Really? Surely, peasant guy is just as equally obligated to change his list to accommodate greatswords guy, and maybe bring fifty peasants and thirty men at arms to the game?
Edit: and what matt said. Scenario can be designed to accomodate a mismatch. Good suggestions there, you could also give the peasants an 'unending wave' rule if you fancied a last stand against overwhelming odds.
(Although to be fair matt, none of these are aos things)
What somewhat baffles me here is that way of thinking. If he wants to play with Greatswords it doesn't matter how many he fields. And if one insists that he came there with exact amount of 50 greatswords in mind, that's not really an argument. If I bring 50 greatswords and my opponent brings 30 dwarf warriors I am obviously going to tone my greatswords down to 30 or 25, it doesn't matter to me how many I field, it's the unit of choice that matters, and it's still there. You could also come with 300 greatswords, five generals on griffons and eight tanks along with lines of cannons and handgunners. It would be selfish for your friend who has only brought 50 miniatures to expect you to tone down, right? See the flaw in that logic?
Let's have this scenario - we both bring ~60 miniatures. His are weaker. We try to talk it out and agree on how do I tone my miniatures down. This takes less than five minutes. We play for fun, if I lose badly and we admit that it wasn't due to my bad decisions, next time we play I will field more of those guys. If it's still too much, we'll try with either more models on his side or fewer on mine. Simple.
And it's literally in the style of AoS 4 page rules when you bring a part of your collection and then decide what to field during the preparation for battle instead of bringing a fixed force with you.
As it was mentioned - scenarios and simple model count reduction are enough to make it even and enjoyable for both players, there really is no problem at all. None. If someone overblows this "issue", he's just trying too hard to find a hole. But then again I guess I'm just too much of a decent person and it's unusual that I personally care about how much fun my opponent is going to have while playing with me. I know, I'm weird.
As with the 12 Bloodthirster example, first, someone needs to buy and assemble (and maybe even paint) 50 Greatswords.
Now, it's not implausible to think that some Empire player has 50 such Greatswords, for whatever reason, and he might want to field them all at some point. Maybe against his Bret opponent. Why shouldn't that happen?
And why shouldn't that Bret player then decide to field a couple blocks of archers or whatnot to balance the game out?
If you want a way to reference how an age of sigmar battle would go, look at EVERY FANTASY COMBAT STORY EVER!
What does it take for someone to take down a dragon riding wizard? You can find it out there somewhere. How do you kill a necromancy swinging demigod, also out there. This game is nothing but fantasy tropes, and has the 25+ years of its own back story to also derive your answers from in regards to how to kill/counter something. You just have to research it like you would for any other points less system referenced so far.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: If you want a way to reference how an age of sigmar battle would go, look at EVERY FANTASY COMBAT STORY EVER!
What does it take for someone to take down a dragon riding wizard? You can find it out there somewhere. How do you kill a necromancy swinging demigod, also out there. This game is nothing but fantasy tropes, and has the 25+ years of its own back story to also derive your answers from in regards to how to kill/counter something. You just have to research it like you would for any other points less system referenced so far.
Can you? Explain to me how you take down a wizard on dragon please? Then explain how this translates to Age of Sigmar.
Please explain how one kills a "necromancy swinging demigod" and how this translates to AOS?
Because I know exactly how to beat Elephants in Ancient warfare (easy by the way) and can find endless sources on how to do so, and most games based on the time period attempt to accurately portray this so generally (sometimes with a little abstraction depending on the game) gives me a good idea on how to prevent my troops falling victim to elephant charges.
So when I am making a scenario where Carthage or India is fighting an enemy I know that the Elephant has clear disadvantages and advantages that can help me make fair game (fair as in a chance for both sides to complete their objective, an objective can be anything). I also know how the Elephants worked alongside other troops and more. In that same vein I can do this for most troops types in history with the exception (off the top of my head) being chariots. But we can make educated guesses there.
What somewhat baffles me here is that way of thinking. If he wants to play with Greatswords it doesn't matter how many he fields. And if one insists that he came there with exact amount of 50 greatswords in mind, that's not really an argument. If I bring 50 greatswords and my opponent brings 30 dwarf warriors I am obviously going to tone my greatswords down to 30 or 25, it doesn't matter to me how many I field, it's the unit of choice that matters, and it's still there.
lets be clear. I have no issues with altering my army. I am quite happy to swap things out. My issues lie with the fact that I am essentially obliged to cut the heart out of my army to enable my opponents arbitrary notion of what's fair, when they have no corresponding obligation to change or swap out anything of what they bring. As far as I'm concerned, with 'fair being fair' both greatsword guy and peasant guy are equally obliged to come to an understanding.vbut that is not the narrative being pushed. The narrative being pushed is its all on gretsword guy, and he is the bad guy if he doesn't bend. He's 'selfish' apparently, despite every chance of wanting a 'fun friendly game'.
And Because apparently competitive players are 'selfish'. That they have no interest in 'fun friendly games' and only in 'cheesy wins'.
The wizard on a dragon, out magic them either with other powerful spell casters or multiple weaker ones to overwhelm their ability to counter spell. Out punch them with a couple big named heroes, or a bunch of heavy cavalry to chase them down. There is also the piles of archers and artillery to simply shoot it down.
The necromancy swinging demigod can normally only be stopped by another godlike being. That means either named characters, supersized monsters of your own, or again a pile of weaker wizards to try and out magic them. Or rush them with cavalry and chariots to keep him from summoning support to keep him alive.
Why is researching fantasy an issue? It is a genra as deep and varied as any other, including history.
Deadnight, the greatsword guy doesn't have to bend at all.
To take a 40k example. Joe has a 200 point kill team army. Sam has a 2500 point Knight Household. It's actually not possible for them to play any meaningful game together.
Nobody should be vilified for wanting to play their army, and that goes both ways. OTOH what happens in a lot of point based games is that the expectation is that at a point level the army IS optimized; or at least that people are bringing their best for that size of game. And, if you complain that someone's army is too strong, that you're just being a whiner, and should improve your own.
If you strip out the points, the latter becomes a non-issue (because there is no longer a reward for optimization). But there is still the possibility that the two people want to play a fundamentally different game. If one guy wants to play bows and swords, and the other guy wants to play demigods and demons, even though the game mechanics allow for coexistence of models, they would probably both be happier playing different opponents than saying, "my 200 peasants against your 2 gods".
MWHistorian wrote: Meanwhile Infinity and Warmachine have their complete rules for free on line. But there was a lot more effort put into them. They're complete games.
Can't speak for Infinity, but only the basic rules for Warmachine are available - none of the unit stats are. The free rules are just the beginning of the MKII rulebook, cutting out the basic unit information, hobby info, unit pictures, timing chart, and even an index. Since the rules are already given out for free (with an index) in digest-sized books with the all-in-one boxes (I have two of them), the only people who really benefit from this are Battlegroup players who only get quick play rules. People who don't have models won't see how the pieces fit together and can't proxy models (unless they pirate the forces books - which going by the comments, isn't entirely uncommon), and existing players already have the rules. So it is specifically only useful to people who have enough models (and stat cards) to play a game, but don't know how to play?
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad that Warmachine has the 95 pages of rules available for free, but without the stat cards, the rules are worthless. They should go the extra mile, like AoS, and make the stats free too. Places like the WM wiki can't list units stats because of this (Damage? Highish), and it would be nice to have an opponent's information without having to constantly ask them. You ever have 5 people crowded around a single card trying to figure out what it does? Getting access to all the cards digitally through War Room is, I think, $60. So the rules aren't FREE free. Just freer. Perhaps PP knows that most WM players are happy to just play with bases as proxies (I've seen more colossal bases than colossals) and wouldn't bother to buy the models (especially, their gakky, gakky resin models - good lord, the Convergence all-in-one was a nightmare).
Sorry. This is completely off subject, but I've spent the better part of a day cleaning mould lines off Retribution riflemen, rebuilding detail, and dunking them in hot water to bend them back into shape, and I'm very frustrated with PP right now.
MWHistorian wrote: Meanwhile Infinity and Warmachine have their complete rules for free on line. But there was a lot more effort put into them. They're complete games.
Really? You call them "complete" with NO unit stats?
Also, it's a lot harder to make something clean and simple than complex and messy. AoS shows that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sqorgar wrote: Sorry. This is completely off subject, but I've spent the better part of a day cleaning mould lines off Retribution riflemen, rebuilding detail, and dunking them in hot water to bend them back into shape, and I'm very frustrated with PP right now.
At last PP is cheaper than GW, right?
Despite each of those PVC models costing more than its GW counterpart...
auticus wrote: Indeed Age of Sigmar is ambitious because at its core it challenges the modern concept of what a wargame is, the same as in the early 90s when the concept of wargames moved from narrative storytelling devices or reenactments to full blown tournament style competitions.
I've been trying to stay out of AoS discussions because I'd thought I'd finally reached the point where I had said what I wanted to and didn't want to become a broken record, but this is so wrong it's not even funny.
That's a very constructive post, thanks for contributing to the conversation.
You're quite welcome.
The fact is that AoS is only revolutionary if you've had your head stuck between the firm, unyielding butt cheeks of the past few editions of Fantasy and 40k.
AoS offers nothing new to the wargaming community. It is not forward thinking. It challenges nothing, apart from the patience of fans of previous editions that liked the rank and file game and were hoping that GW could finally turn their dying system around. It is like GHQ's Microarmor Tank rules - a relatively simple to learn, free game designed to let you play with the models you've bought.
Which is fine. People can play AoS and have fun with it. Go right ahead and do so. But don't put the game up on a pedestal and imagine that it'll be leading the charge to a bright new future of wargaming. Because if that's what you think, Kirby should change his name to Cardigan.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MWHistorian wrote: Meanwhile Infinity and Warmachine have their complete rules for free on line. But there was a lot more effort put into them. They're complete games.
infinite_array wrote: Yeah, but that doesn't "challenge the modern concept of what a wargame is" - and it'd take a very long and probably pretty heated thread to figure out what the definition of "modern wargame" actually is.
And for owning all the GW content - you've bought both of the campaign books for AoS, and plan on continuing to buy them? Because, as far as I can tell, they do happen to have content in them that isn't available for free online, like the various Realm flavor rules, and scenarios.
From the various threads, it's pretty obvious that a modern wargame is the very sort of mindless "X points battle" that Jervis decried in Citadel Journal over a decade ago. Yes, there are tweaks, but the core of the genre, as homogenized by market leading 40k and the variety of third party successors, doesn't deviate the pattern nearly as much as AoS does. At least in concept.
On the tabletop, AoS plays very similarly (and not coincidentally) to 40k, but without as much complexity. To that point, AoS can be seen as fulfilling GW's objectives of moving away from generic "X points battle" while still playing as GW thinks a battles game should.
Jervis is an idiot and a corporate cheerleader for GW. To illistrate this more he had to put his "Most Important Rule" on a 4 page rule set and in my opinion that rule is not even needed... if you cant figure out how to agree on a disagreement why do you even play games or socialize? GW just wants people to buy models. Yeah i get they are in that business. GW used to write rules, fact is all their good game designers are gone and doing their own things these days... the rulebooks dont even say who they are written by and instead now say "GW design team." When your core designers who had "vision" of a project leave and the newer generations take over they can loose their vision... to me GW is loosing their vision and concentrating on not the hobby they helped create but their vision is on their profit. You see this after lets say 3rd edition Warhammer Fantasy where they started seeking money over developing the game and designers start filtering out over time. You can see this in the new books for most part on artwork being replaced by pictures of models... yeah there is some artwork but not the same caliber of old... no feel of what made the GW games special... no suspense as i wonder what that is... Sure the new AOS has new fluff they are doing and lots of pictures of ground marines... it has a couple cool art pictures... but most are meh compared to the older art... even the old black and white stuff helped the imagination flow.
Point values are not needed in any game true. They should be included so that players have the option to have a structured list to play or play senerios w/o narrative like if you choose. For a game to have no structure and have to have the community make their own in order to play it to me shows a truely poor written piece of dross that can have all the synergy a turd has while being flushed. If you are going to make something do it to the best of your ability... the arguement that people buy GW models for models is crap. I buy their models and have bought them do to the fluff of the game and for the game itself. I dont buy models to build and paint just for grins... if i did that i would buy/build regular model kits from any company (like a model airplane). I build models first for the game i like to play and second then is the part of enjoying the building and painting of the models i bought for the game. If the rules were like AOS when i first started out i would have ROFLMAO at GW and warhammer and would never have wanted to try any warhammer games and would not thus collected any models aside from a F16 model i would have had when i was 6 years old that i built with my father and found boring.
@JohnHwangDD - you have the right file. It's like what you get with a WMH starter box -- essentially the first section of the (not free) rulebook. You get the first 100-ish pages, and the whole book, which contains some fluff, and many units (as MWHistorian says, not all). Their complete "main rulebook" is around 250 pages. The part that you have contains the complete mechanics of the whole game, some scenarios, and that kind of thing, though.
Personally, I actually find it perplexing that the unit rules aren't just downloadable, since they come free with the units themselves (on an annoying little trading card thing). At a minimum, the units NOT in the printed book should be available as full page PDFs, so that they can be printed and put into a gaming binder.
My internet skills are just fine. I can always torrent pirate copies. I simply wanted to ensure that there wasn't some other version.
And definitely better than your social skills. Maybe you should reread the latest Page 5 and not act like a jackass, OK? Being a jerk doesn't do your game any favors.
Anyhow, it's laughable that you're crowing about PP for releasing an inferior set compared to GW, which gave us the rules and all of the unit information.
You can always get the app and pay all of what, $6 for a full army list?
It's great to see AoS go that route and I hope 40k gets something like that soon because as it stood GW was the only model company I could name whose core rules required additional paid rules for each army and would sell those additional rules at more than a starter set for other game systems.
The only way Age of Sigmar works is if the person who brings 50 greatswords goes, "Oh, these guys are way better than your 50 peasants. I'll just take 40 of them away, and give it a whirl. Sound good?"
Ie it only works when greatsword guy bends. In other word, goalposts being moved. Again.
The balancing system of AoS works like this: 1) Which army do we think is more powerful? 2) What do we have to remove to make it equally powerful to the other army? 3) No consensus? No game.
2b. why do we have to remove? Why does greatswords guy have to bend? Why can't peasant guy? Surely adding stuff to make it equal is just as valid? Again, not the narrative being pushed here. It's all on greatsword guy to bend and enable/accomodate the other guy and having to change, with the other guy having the expectation of how he wants to play being defined as the 'right way' that has to be catered to, and not having to bend or accomodate in any way. But greatsword guy is the one seen as 'selfish'.
Nobody should be vilified for wanting to play their army, and that goes both ways. OTOH what happens in a lot of point based games is that the expectation is that at a point level the army IS optimized; or at least that people are bringing their best for that size of game. And, if you complain that someone's army is too strong, that you're just being a whiner, and should improve your own.
Which generally works in well designed point based systems, along with other structural limitations and supports (eg multiple lists, sideboards, various victory conditions etc). The expectation is not that an army is 'optimised', it's that you will have a fair game, in a well designed points system, optimisation is irrelevant because everything's value is costed accordingly. Simply put: you've played far too much 40k.
If you complain that the other guys army is too strong, sometimes it can indeed boil down to 'being a whiner' and needing to improve your game. Sometimes this is the literal truth. Scrub 101. Your dismissal of this is intellectually dishonest talys.
And yes, Sometimes it can be a genuine imbalance. See 40k. And like I said, other times it can be 'why didn't you do x, go to y, and push here instead of pull'
If you strip out the points, the latter becomes a non-issue (because there is no longer a reward for optimization).
My arse. What utter rubbish.
one player is still vilified for bringing greatswords, for being 'selfish', and having no interest in a 'fun, friendly game'. Removing points and replacing them with 'eyeballing balance' does not remove either the whining or needing to improve your game. You still get cries of 'that's not fair', 'you only won because of a cheesy list', and 'your list is broken' etc
jonolikespie wrote: You can always get the app and pay all of what, $6 for a full army list?
It's great to see AoS go that route and I hope 40k gets something like that soon because as it stood GW was the only model company I could name whose core rules required additional paid rules for each army and would sell those additional rules at more than a starter set for other game systems.
To be fair, I would be totally fine with removing any official balance from 40k just as they did with AoS. 40k is in a terrible, all-time low balance state and nigh unplayable on higher competitive levels. At that point, GW could just as well cave in and turn 40k into a no-effort system too, the game itself would improve, yet the feces-storm would be remarkable.
The only way Age of Sigmar works is if the person who brings 50 greatswords goes, "Oh, these guys are way better than your 50 peasants. I'll just take 40 of them away, and give it a whirl. Sound good?"
So all of a sudden 50 greatsword guy is vilified and doesn't get a game for simply wanting to play his army.
Frankly I find this whole no points thing and the people defending it just plain odd. As far as I am concerned the entire point of having rules in a game is to make the whole damn thing fair. You can make all the arguments you want about creativity and how GW weren't able to do that with points anyway but that's what it boils down to for me. AoS doesn't even try to give two people a fair playing field and on that alone is has failed on the conceptual level.
I don't think anyone is claiming that the current rules for AoS are anything resembling a proper game, There are so many holes that need feeling.
But to me that is not the point. I don't for one minute think that GW have done this for the good of the players or to advance the concept of tabletop wargaming. In my opinion they have totally de-prioritised the rules of the game and have prioritised the miniatures and terrain, which in my opinion on the whole are great.
So the question is, what do you do from here? Or rather, is their potential in what we currently have of the AoS rules and warscrolls. In my opinion the answer is yes.
Already there are systems that have been produced to try and address the deficiencies of the game. Yes the gamers shouldn't have to do this but the question remains, can you use your hard built and painted model collection in this game and enjoy yourself?
This in no way absolves GW from not meeting its repsonsibilities but we are where we are. Can something be salvaged that is worthwhile?
dragonelf wrote: I don't think anyone is claiming that the current rules for AoS are anything resembling a proper game, There are so many holes that need feeling.
I am. I'm not sure what you mean by "proper" game, but the rules, as written, are more than enough to play an enjoyable game. It lacks, perhaps, a few extra features that could benefit it as a lifestyle game meant to be enjoyed over decades, but the game is two months old and not even done releasing units for its first faction. What I'm saying is that it's fine for what it is now, and if you want more from it over a longer period of time, you have to factor in that there will be more releases for it in that longer period of time (which may or may not be what you want). Campaign books, more scenery, more units and unit specific rules, more factions, and so on.
(I would not pin all my hopes on any one release though, as some people did for the first campaign book, and instead look globally at how the game is developing with each new release - I think scenery, for example, is proving more important than it initially appears, and at least one battalion scroll includes scenery, indicating that the scenery is part of your army selection)
But to me that is not the point. I don't for one minute think that GW have done this for the good of the players or to advance the concept of tabletop wargaming. In my opinion they have totally de-prioritised the rules of the game and have prioritised the miniatures and terrain, which in my opinion on the whole are great.
The 4 pages of rules are sort of the overview - the grand direction of game. The actual minutiae of gameplay comes from the individual warscrolls. For instance, there is a brief comment on cover in the 4 pages of rules, but the scenery rules for walls and scenery have more detailed rules. There's only one command for generals in the 4 pages, but hero models tend to include additional commands. And so on. The 4 pages are the skeleton, with the warscrolls being the meat.
Already there are systems that have been produced to try and address the deficiencies of the game. Yes the gamers shouldn't have to do this but the question remains, can you use your hard built and painted model collection in this game and enjoy yourself?
Why shouldn't gamers do it? There was this article I read a while ago about the difference between "curative" fans and "transformative" fans. The curative fans consider themselves the curators of canon, and seek to maintain the righteousness and integrity of what they love. Transformative fans tend to take something they love and then use it as the basis for their own creations. They write fan fiction, draw fan art, ship different characters together, roleplay, and so on. Both these types of fans exist within any single fanbase, and in the case of miniature games, that's where you see people who convert their army, use weird color schemes, and yes, build additional rulesets and scenarios to play with.
So whatever you do, players will always contribute the game like that. However, most games, and most game fanbases, have limitations on where and how this transformative aspect can take place. You can do it, just do it over there. And almost without exception, the game's rules must be curated, not transformed. AoS is interesting because while the 4 pages tell you how to play, they put virtually no limit on what you can play. This makes it the perfect playground for transformative fans to contribute to the game because the rules are open enough to allow for that kind of wiggle room without stepping on the rules canon that must be preserved at all cost by curative fans.
As a curative fan, I can understand how relying on that is a bit unsettling. It just feels wrong. So... so... unofficial. But I'm not sure how much of that is just me and how much of it is actually a threat to the game, as I feel it might be. A while ago, I decided to be more open minded about such things, and while the tendencies and mistrust are still there, I am also somewhat curious as to where a community-driven game would go. At the very least, fans can add onto the game without breaking what is there. A point system on top of AoS does not break AoS. They do not have to break the canon to do their transformative thing. Not like Star Trek slash fan fiction.
This in no way absolves GW from not meeting its repsonsibilities but we are where we are. Can something be salvaged that is worthwhile?
I don't think the grand scheme of the game is yet visible to use poorly plebeians. The game is but two months old, still in the midst of its initial release barrage. Even then, it will not present the new vision of various races, like the orks, elves, or dwarves (or whatever they are called now), nor has any FAQ or errata been released to clarify the rules which are, in my opinion, mostly obvious, but not inarguable. There may be other rules coming out as well. So, it's less about salvaging a sinking ship and more like seeing just the tip of a submarine, having no idea what it really looks like under the water.
People whom upon buying a product* expect it to work.
*I am well aware that the rules are now free, but the 'product' in this case is AoS as a whole, meaning if I am paying money for gaming models, which is what GW models are despite what GW say so long as there are rules attached, I don't expect to have to put in an ounce of work to make the game fun.
AOS feels like I'm in a modern art gallery where people are looking at a canvas covered in one shade of green while people around me say,
"What a bold statement against the duality of mankind!"
"How brave to cover the entire space in one shade of beauty."
"The subtle delicate brushstrokes build up to a crescendo of expression that defies all art that came before!"
jonolikespie wrote: *I am well aware that the rules are now free, but the 'product' in this case is AoS as a whole, meaning if I am paying money for gaming models, which is what GW models are despite what GW say so long as there are rules attached, I don't expect to have to put in an ounce of work to make the game fun.
Have you actually played the game? Because the rules do make for a fun time. There's a lot of people who have said as much, in this thread and others, but they are always dismissed by the people who haven't played the game as being wrong, or idiots, or children. The rules, as written, provide for a grand old time as is. It has rules for picking armies at the table, rules for scenery, rules for winning, rules for balancing, rules for playing, and so on. The only change I'd make when playing for the first time is to measure from bases (assuming they all have round bases).
That you think the rules are too simple or don't work, as written, just says to me that you haven't bothered to give the game a real chance. You may ultimately desire more from the game, or wish you were playing something else, but the game is perfectly playable as is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MWHistorian wrote: AOS feels like I'm in a modern art gallery where people are looking at a canvas covered in one shade of green while people around me say,
"What a bold statement against the duality of mankind!"
"How brave to cover the entire space in one shade of beauty."
"The subtle delicate brushstrokes build up to a crescendo of expression that defies all art that came before!"
Meanwhile I stand there and see green.
So what you are saying is that there are people who appreciate art on a level beyond your comprehension, and that their enjoyment is somehow arrogant because you can't imagine anything beyond the most simple, flat, and boring interpretation?
I know your intention is to say that they are full of gak, but maybe different people can look at the same thing and take different things away from it without either party being specifically wrong. Most of my posts in this this thread haven't been about making you like a green painting, but to explain why I don't just see green. You don't have to like the green painting, and I doubt you ever will, but it is my hope that you'll at least allow for people to hold other points of view without immediately judging them as full of gak.
Sqorgar wrote: Have you actually played the game? Because the rules do make for a fun time. There's a lot of people who have said as much, in this thread and others, but they are always dismissed by the people who haven't played the game as being wrong, or idiots, or children
...and 100% of the time, people dismiss any criticism towards AoS by saying the other person has never played it.
AoS as a ruleset is objectively bad. It's more of a collection of loosely connected rules ideas with warscrolls that are terribly balanced, both external and internal. This doesn't devoid it of the possibility to be fun for people, objectivity and subjectivity are two different things.
Subjectively, yes I played a game but did not bother finishing, it felt shallow with superficial dice rolling constantly instead of player made decisions.
Objectively, any game that tells you to put your models on top of someone elses in order to make it into range is asking for damaged models, discouraging scenic basing and poorly thought out.
MWHistorian wrote: AOS feels like I'm in a modern art gallery where people are looking at a canvas covered in one shade of green while people around me say,
"What a bold statement against the duality of mankind!"
"How brave to cover the entire space in one shade of beauty."
"The subtle delicate brushstrokes build up to a crescendo of expression that defies all art that came before!"
Meanwhile I stand there and see green.
So what you are saying is that there are people who appreciate art on a level beyond your comprehension, and that their enjoyment is somehow arrogant because you can't imagine anything beyond the most simple, flat, and boring interpretation?
I know your intention is to say that they are full of gak, but maybe different people can look at the same thing and take different things away from it without either party being specifically wrong. Most of my posts in this this thread haven't been about making you like a green painting, but to explain why I don't just see green. You don't have to like the green painting, and I doubt you ever will, but it is my hope that you'll at least allow for people to hold other points of view without immediately judging them as full of gak.
As a profesional artist, I can assure you that some art is just crap. A green canvas is pretensions and hollow full of sound and fury and signifies nothing.
I don't think GW intended to make something that changes the face of gaming. I think they just wanted a game for the least amount of effort possible.
What I am calling pretentious is the idea that this game is revolutionary and daring. It's a corporate cop-out made to sell more models.
Again, I don't think AOS is made to be played with much thought involved. That's not a bad thing. That's exactly how I like my video games. To each his own.
But don't pretend for a second that this game is as tactical or strategic as any other game out there.
Admit it for what it is. If one likes it, good on them.
But the criticisms of AOS being simplistic are well founded.
I don't think the grand scheme of the game is yet visible to use poorly plebeians. The game is but two months old, still in the midst of its initial release barrage. Even then, it will not present the new vision of various races, like the orks, elves, or dwarves (or whatever they are called now), nor has any FAQ or errata been released to clarify the rules which are, in my opinion, mostly obvious, but not inarguable. There may be other rules coming out as well. So, it's less about salvaging a sinking ship and more like seeing just the tip of a submarine, having no idea what it really looks like under the water.
Sadly. it doesn't seem to me that there's some grand design for a game, built little by little, out there. For me a game's expansion shouldn't be just new units without the foundation of options to play. Right now I feel that with all that "you're free to do whatever you like" attitude that AoS is showing I doesn't give me much to play with. It sounds like a zen saying or something: "Here young grasshopper, take nothing and you shall learn to play with everything". I like AoS for what it is IMO - an easy game to play your miniatures, with some rules evoking certain visual characteristics of the models and minimum time spent for learning the simple core mechanics. It can manage as an introductory game to the hobby at large and that's how I'm using it. Even a completely new player that I introduced it to kind of complained that there's not that much to do in the game after all. Sure, he liked it, like he would've liked his first girlfriend back in the years, but still...
How come systems like Malifaux and DZC (these I've played and have tracked them since the beginning) can start with a nice book, filled with rules, stories, missions, options etc. and the 250 million pounds, annual turnover (just a number I pulled from my behind) corporation that is GW couldn't do the same? They indeed have bigger shoes to fill than these other companies and they should have the resources to accomplish it, but for now they're just lying on old laurels so to speak.
I realize that one argument for AoS has been that it is intended for/liked by people who don't want to be bothered by complicated rules, but the facts are out there: The AoS (atleast the first, the second I've only seen on video reviews, as I'm rather cautious now) books offer laughable content compared to other companies' books which are much cheaper. Ok, you don't want to give us rules? Fine, fill it with something else that is worthy of a book. Well written stories and fluff could have done the job. Page after page of the same picture of stormcast eternals battling chaos along with photos of stormcast eternals fighting chaos is not what I call good book content though – I call it an overpriced art album. It may be enough for some people, but I've seen better. I realize that books of this nature must be a mix of the two, story and pictures, but these go far too much towards one to the exclusion of the other.
I consider myself a somewhat AoS-pro person (that is I want to support the system), I want the game to grow, become better and succeed, as I think that every good game riches the hobby, but for now they've showed me too little of their big endeavor to push me from just sympathetic to committed. I doubt that I'll see some kind of miracle during the last month given to AoS for the year.
The only way Age of Sigmar works is if the person who brings 50 greatswords goes, "Oh, these guys are way better than your 50 peasants. I'll just take 40 of them away, and give it a whirl. Sound good?"
Ie it only works when greatsword guy bends. In other word, goalposts being moved. Again.
Again, NO. No goalpost moving. They don't have to play. The two people can walk away from a game, and should do so, if they essentially want to play different games.
2b. why do we have to remove? Why does greatswords guy have to bend? Why can't peasant guy? Surely adding stuff to make it equal is just as valid? Again, not the narrative being pushed here. It's all on greatsword guy to bend and enable/accomodate the other guy and having to change, with the other guy having the expectation of how he wants to play being defined as the 'right way' that has to be catered to, and not having to bend or accomodate in any way. But greatsword guy is the one seen as 'selfish'.
Because... the guy with the peasants is there at the table, may never meet the greatsword guy again, and either they play or don't play. It's not what you could have in 2 months from now, it's what you have right now that matters.
If the guy with the peasants NEVER wants to improve his army, and the guy with the greatswords loves and is constantly improving his army, they'll be poor play partners anyhow. This was kind of my point. People who want different things out of the hobby do not make good opponents. It does not make either person a bad person.
Which generally works in well designed point based systems, along with other structural limitations and supports (eg multiple lists, sideboards, various victory conditions etc). The expectation is not that an army is 'optimised', it's that you will have a fair game, in a well designed points system, optimisation is irrelevant because everything's value is costed accordingly. Simply put: you've played far too much 40k.
Or WMH.
If I want to just buy models that I like the aesthetic of, and play that army, this is not possible in WMH. Even within the constraints of what I MUST take, the battle force will NOT be effective, if I don't want to read the unit rules first, and really care more about the models and how my army will look assembled rather than their rules.
one player is still vilified for bringing greatswords, for being 'selfish', and having no interest in a 'fun, friendly game'. Removing points and replacing them with 'eyeballing balance' does not remove either the whining or needing to improve your game. You still get cries of 'that's not fair', 'you only won because of a cheesy list', and 'your list is broken' etc
I've said that nobody should be vilified or called selfish for wanting to play their models. If there is no meeting of the minds, neither player gets a game; that's all. Nobody's a bad person because of it. If Joe says, "I have what I think is an awesome tournament army" and Sam says, "All I have is the starter box models" -- then they should both find different opponents rather than waste their time.
If the guy with the peasants NEVER wants to improve his army, and the guy with the greatswords loves and is constantly improving his army, they'll be poor play partners anyhow. This was kind of my point. People who want different things out of the hobby do not make good opponents. It does not make either person a bad person.
I think this is what I have been trying to say for Decades now.
Some People should just not be playing each other if they both feel the other was is 'Wrong For How They Play'. And No one should be the Bad Guy.
When you become the 'Bad Guy' is when you Force the other guy to play Your Way.
But doesn't that create a problem for place where there is not 100 players, but more like 20. Wouldn't it be better to make a game playable for all, and not just a minority?
Anpu42 wrote: I think this is what I have been trying to say for Decades now.
Some People should just not be playing each other if they both feel the other was is 'Wrong For How They Play'. And No one should be the Bad Guy.
When you become the 'Bad Guy' is when you Force the other guy to play Your Way.
I think there's room for both groups, and I think both groups can, should, and will be able to play together in perfect harmony - assuming they are willing to compromise. There's one tournament-style Warmachine player who won't play with me, nor I him, because we want such different things from the game (I like smaller game sizes, while he won't play anything less than 75 points). But we exist in the same club and can discuss the game without problem. We can not compromise in one area, but that doesn't mean we have nothing in common in others.
The problem comes when one group or the other starts to speak for the community as a whole. I know I've been guilty of that (though largely in defense against others doing it). Eventually it comes down to who "owns" the game. With Warmachine and 40k, the tournament gamers have won it, kit and caboodle. You can talk about how you like to play the green one, but your voice is not welcome there. Expect to be told at length why your opinion is wrong, it is bad for the game, you are stupid for having it, and nobody likes you anyway.
With AoS, nobody "owns" the community yet - it's too new, and does thing just differently enough that it can't just assume another game's community - and there is an ongoing battle for it. One type of player doesn't like the game and wants to destroy the community. If they can't have it (or don't want it), it has no right to exist. They want to convince others to abandon the game, largely to appease their own self satisfaction in knowing that they are right and righteous. Walk away? Agree to disagree? NEVER! I am right, dammit! My pain must be acknowledged!
The other type of player wants to play the game without having to fight for the right to enjoy it. They are largely not welcomed in certain places (like Warseer), and have sought to start their own communities away from the established ones, like the reddit and facebook groups. They are starting new podcasts, creating new blogs, and beginning anew because there's been no support elsewhere. Over time, no doubt, a new community will be built, and I'm sure it will continue to be treated like the slow kid in the helmet by 40k fans, by which I mean that the animosity will be mutual and the communities exclusive.
Anpu42 wrote: I think this is what I have been trying to say for Decades now.
Some People should just not be playing each other if they both feel the other was is 'Wrong For How They Play'. And No one should be the Bad Guy.
When you become the 'Bad Guy' is when you Force the other guy to play Your Way.
I think there's room for both groups, and I think both groups can, should, and will be able to play together in perfect harmony - assuming they are willing to compromise. There's one tournament-style Warmachine player who won't play with me, nor I him, because we want such different things from the game (I like smaller game sizes, while he won't play anything less than 75 points). But we exist in the same club and can discuss the game without problem. We can not compromise in one area, but that doesn't mean we have nothing in common in others.
The problem comes when one group or the other starts to speak for the community as a whole. I know I've been guilty of that (though largely in defense against others doing it). Eventually it comes down to who "owns" the game. With Warmachine and 40k, the tournament gamers have won it, kit and caboodle. You can talk about how you like to play the green one, but your voice is not welcome there. Expect to be told at length why your opinion is wrong, it is bad for the game, you are stupid for having it, and nobody likes you anyway.
With AoS, nobody "owns" the community yet - it's too new, and does thing just differently enough that it can't just assume another game's community - and there is an ongoing battle for it. One type of player doesn't like the game and wants to destroy the community. If they can't have it (or don't want it), it has no right to exist. They want to convince others to abandon the game, largely to appease their own self satisfaction in knowing that they are right and righteous. Walk away? Agree to disagree? NEVER! I am right, dammit! My pain must be acknowledged!
The other type of player wants to play the game without having to fight for the right to enjoy it. They are largely not welcomed in certain places (like Warseer), and have sought to start their own communities away from the established ones, like the reddit and facebook groups. They are starting new podcasts, creating new blogs, and beginning anew because there's been no support elsewhere. Over time, no doubt, a new community will be built, and I'm sure it will continue to be treated like the slow kid in the helmet by 40k fans, by which I mean that the animosity will be mutual and the communities exclusive.
I was with you with the part that says there's room for both parties in a game. Your example of Warmachine was exactly how I feel. I'm a casual guy, but I play competitive people all the time without a problem at all.
But then you launched into this binary "competitives are like this and they're bad." AOS players are like this and they're good!
I don't believe in a binary world. I'm a very casual player, but I have streaks of compettitivness in me, as I'm sure most people do to varying degrees.
Villainising one group is counterproductive to your said goal of bringing both groups together.
Makumba wrote:But doesn't that create a problem for place where there is not 100 players, but more like 20. Wouldn't it be better to make a game playable for all, and not just a minority?
While I think that you can make a game playable for all, I don't think that all people can enjoy playing the same game with each other, so it doesn't really matter even if they're playing the same title. The people that want to play the game a different way and splinter off, if they prefer another title that's better for them, what does it matter?
If there's 20 people, and 5 of them aren't happy, that means, if a second game makes 15 people happy with one, and 5 more happy with another... there's a good chance more people will jump in and join the other 5 -- so maybe after some time, you'll have 25 people in the area, with 15 in one game and 10 in the other. And then you might find that a couple in the other group change their preferences, turning it into 17 and 8.
In the same way, X-Wing is *totally* not for me, and were it not to exist, perhaps more people would play the games I like. But I'm glad X-Wing exists and makes its playerbase happy.
MWHistorian wrote:But then you launched into this binary "competitives are like this and they're bad." AOS players are like this and they're good! I don't believe in a binary world. I'm a very casual player, but I have streaks of compettitivness in me, as I'm sure most people do to varying degrees. Villainising one group is counterproductive to your said goal of bringing both groups together.
I think you see some of this because quite often, in games like WMH and 40k, the local public game scene is unwelcoming to players who have no interest in improving the effectiveness of their army. They're called things like "Fluff Bunnies" and are derided as "not serious gamers". When, actually, they're just looking for a different sort of game. I've seen it happen in my local scene before.
I totally agree with you that we don't live in a binary world. The solution, for me, is to play the game I like in a private setting with people that like playing it approximately the same way as me -- the needle somewhere in between in terms of competitiveness, nice models being important, the fluff being not really important except that armies should generally make sense and have a raison d'etre, and the dial cranked all the way up in terms of planning interesting scenarios rather than just "bring your army and bash it out".
CoreCommander wrote: Sadly. it doesn't seem to me that there's some grand design for a game, built little by little, out there.
I think we've seen the grand design. I just don't think it is fully fleshed out yet. We know what the game is and where it is going, but the lack of details prevent us from having an accurate prediction of what the game will look like a year from now.
Right now I feel that with all that "you're free to do whatever you like" attitude that AoS is showing I doesn't give me much to play with.
Being able to do more means that you can do less? So it is a lack of direction that you object to? What can GW do to help you? Points?
They indeed have bigger shoes to fill than these other companies and they should have the resources to accomplish it, but for now they're just lying on old laurels so to speak.
I'm mostly convinced that the success of a miniatures game is not based on the quality of the game itself, but on the size of the company producing it. The majority of the effort goes into supporting the hobby and community aspects, so while a smaller company may produce good rules and nice models, they are still relying on the support network of communities built by the big boys. They are reading painting tutorials written for other games. They are using paints made for other games. They are using subforums of other communities. They are using news sources built around other games. GW, and to an extent PP, are the only companies that have complete vertical integration.
So yeah, I think GW is relying on old laurels - laurels they've spent 30 years building up from nothing. The framework they've created for WFB and 40k makes the introduction of new miniature games trivial. I think the problem is that they aren't using it very well. Because White Dwarf has become weekly, and basically functions as advertisements for the current week's models, they don't bother to use the magazine to promote the hobby at large. GW is such a tight lipped company that you'd have an easir time extracting their teeth than information about releases even two weeks out. They could easily get out there and put AoS into context, but aren't. And I'm honestly not sure if it is because they want the players to figure out what they want the game to be, or if they've just grown so paranoid and shut in that they are afraid of saying anything at all anymore.
I realize that one argument for AoS has been that it is intended for/liked by people who don't want to be bothered by complicated rules, but the facts are out there: The AoS (atleast the first, the second I've only seen on video reviews, as I'm rather cautious now) books offer laughable content compared to other companies' books which are much cheaper. Ok, you don't want to give us rules? Fine, fill it with something else that is worthy of a book. Well written stories and fluff could have done the job. Page after page of the same picture of stormcast eternals battling chaos along with photos of stormcast eternals fighting chaos is not what I call good book content though – I call it an overpriced art album. It may be enough for some people, but I've seen better. I realize that books of this nature must be a mix of the two, story and pictures, but these go far too much towards one to the exclusion of the other.
I don't think you'll find many people defending GW's decision to produce super expensive hardback books that simply repeat information that is included in their super expensive magazines and novels. I, personally, see these books as a documentation of the game - a summary as it grows and changes over time - in the same way that the Warmachine books are, given that the units stats are included with the models otherwise. Even then, the books are too frequent and too expensive.
I doubt that I'll see some kind of miracle during the last month given to AoS for the year.
I doubt that too. If you don't find the Stormcasts or Khorne that interesting, it probably won't do much for you any time soon. I think once they come back to AoS, it might be interesting. I'm interested to see how the new factions look, and I'm curious to see if they keep up with the scenery. When they release the new fyreslayer dwarves, will they get a giant modular castle too? Will there be new realm of battle boards created for the other 8 realms? Will they continue to release new units for the Stormcasts as a slow drip, rather than dedicating a few months here and there to complete factions?
I think right now, the story is just big gold dudes versus big, but not as big angry violent dudes, and that's kind of limited. But once the other realms and races are explored, there will be more possibilities for fluff, models, scenery, novels, and whatever. I don't think the core of the game will change, but it will be broader in terms of what it can do, and I think that will be pretty interesting. It's a game of inches.
But no, in the immediate month ahead, I wouldn't expect many miracles.
I was with you with the part that says there's room for both parties in a game. Your example of Warmachine was exactly how I feel. I'm a casual guy, but I play competitive people all the time without a problem at all.
But then you launched into this binary "competitives are like this and they're bad." AOS players are like this and they're good!
I don't believe in a binary world. I'm a very casual player, but I have streaks of compettitivness in me, as I'm sure most people do to varying degrees.
Villainising one group is counterproductive to your said goal of bringing both groups together.
There is a very distinct Us vs Them feeling going on, but you are right. It definitely feels like there is a war going on for the soul of the community - not just here, but also other GW forums - and I've definitely seen a fair few people leave those communities to start there own. However, I may not be completely right in blaming the tournament players for this. A large number of complaints against AoS is the lack of tournament-style accouterments, like points or explicit balancing structures. But it may not strictly be tournament gamers making these complaints.
Some definitely are, but I'm increasingly getting the impression that some are just from people who don't know what to do because the game doesn't tell them. What if someone shows up with an absurdly unfair army to play against? Maybe they aren't asking because they plan on fielding that army, but simply because they wouldn't know what to do if they had to play against it. Maybe the reason why AoS perplexes them so is because they aren't tournament gamers, so there isn't that easy answer of "AoS wasn't made for you". Well, if they aren't tournament gamers and it wasn't made for them, who was it made for? Not sure I have those answers.
Right now I feel that with all that "you're free to do whatever you like" attitude that AoS is showing I doesn't give me much to play with.
Being able to do more means that you can do less? So it is a lack of direction that you object to? What can GW do to help you? Points?
Well, no. To tell the truth I don't need points that much (I love Apocalypse 40k and honestly think for myself that it is the 40k experience that every gamer should have), but I'm lazy and unimaginative in terms of various ways to play the game (as I've said in the other "big" thread). While I appreciate the plethora of unit abilities that is out there I feel the game is lacking in its mission structure. I know that there are scenarios, I know that there are particular "Realms" rules etc., but they're still not enough for me. I haven't played Malifaux that much, but the secret objectives are an example of the mission structure I expect to see in a game. Combined with the different objectives and deployments these give me the out of the box options I require. Age of Sigmar is doing this already, but it still has a long way to go. Variety is what I want and I feel it is not delivered in enough quantity for now. 40k for example isn't the paragon of innovative missions, but beside the banal "stay near that point" and "go over there" there are the three secondary objectives, more rules for global effects on the battlefield etc. Btw if you can, take a look at the latest Apocalypse book. It is very much in tone with the AoS "no points everything is allowed" mantra, but has much more beef to it. The additional rules for commanders, stratagems, a whole campaign, disaster rules are all presented in one way or another in the AoS base rulebook, but they're nowhere near the stuff and the overall layout in Apocalypse.
Sqorgar wrote:So yeah, I think GW is relying on old laurels - laurels they've spent 30 years building up from nothing.
Exactly because they've been building their laurels for the past 30 years I've come to expect better things from them. When the quality of their new printed product is well below what I'm used to, I as a selfish customer, not remembering past good purchases from the company, begin to grumble. And while we're on the topic of White Dwarf - you're reaching out and sticking a finger in a wound that is deeper than you imagine ( I remember you stating in one of your posts that you're just entering GW's games)
As I said, I'm still willing to wait on while GW piles up content. If they pull it off better than how they're doing it now - great. From what I've seen till now I'm not impressed - my opinion is that the whole execution is pretty average and not befitting the company that everybody compares everything with (in a good or bad manner).
Ie it only works when greatsword guy bends. In other word, goalposts being moved. Again.
But why? Why do you seem to be so stuck with that idea? It's all situational, for the love of God!
If both players come to the store with only 50 miniatures of their choice then yes, it's obvious that the one with stronger units should field fewer models, that's pretty much logical. And, as I said earlier, it doesn't matter if he fields 50 or 30 greatswords, he still fields them! Now if both players go to the store with bigger parts of their collections then it's obvious that it's even better if the one with peasants fields 80-100 of them instead, because he can. It's not always the greatswords guy that has to adapt, it's situational, can't you see that? Also your point is silly, because just the same way one player can come with 1500 points of models and the other with 1000 and if the latter can't bump up his force to 1500, the other one has to reduce, that's really the most basic law of any interaction. Unless you want them to play an uneven match. So let's say this clearly:
If force A > force B, then force B should grow in size to match force A.
If force B < force A but it can't be expanded, then force A has to be cut down for the match to be fair OR both players come up with a scenario to counter the disproportion.
Basic logic. And as I said earlier, what if the player A comes with tanks, griffons and bajillion other models? Is it selfish to ask him to back down because he brought 3 times more models that are 10 times stronger? How dare the regular player expect to be allowed to fight something more even! Instead of agreeing on points level you just agree on power level. Bringing 3000pts against 1000pts is just like bringing 30 bloodthirsters against 30 greatswords, only difference is that you sort it out during preparation of the game rather than back home while making the list. AoS rules say explicitly that you build your force on the go before each match.
Well, no. To tell the truth I don't need points that much (I love Apocalypse 40k and honestly think for myself that it is the 40k experience that every gamer should have), but I'm lazy and unimaginative in terms of various ways to play the game (as I've said in the other "big" thread). While I appreciate the plethora of unit abilities that is out there I feel the game is lacking in its mission structure. I know that there are scenarios, I know that there are particular "Realms" rules etc., but they're still not enough for me. I haven't played Malifaux that much, but the secret objectives are an example of the mission structure I expect to see in a game. Combined with the different objectives and deployments these give me the out of the box options I require. Age of Sigmar is doing this already, but it still has a long way to go. Variety is what I want and I feel it is not delivered in enough quantity for now. 40k for example isn't the paragon of innovative missions, but beside the banal "stay near that point" and "go over there" there are the three secondary objectives, more rules for global effects on the battlefield etc. Btw if you can, take a look at the latest Apocalypse book. It is very much in tone with the AoS "no points everything is allowed" mantra, but has much more beef to it. The additional rules for commanders, stratagems, a whole campaign, disaster rules are all presented in one way or another in the AoS base rulebook, but they're nowhere near the stuff and the overall layout in Apocalypse.
So what you want are a variety of options to give you the ability to customize your game? Or to have variety in the kind of games you can play? Or maybe just more things to consider, with complex relationships, that give your brain a workout when planning strategy?
I'm curious what you think of the soon to be released dreadfort? (Other than how expensive it is). There are 4 different modules to it, each with their own sets of rules. It seems like assaulting it (or defending it) would present a very different gaming experience than normal. Combined with the other 4 pieces of scenery, the random scenery effects, the realm rules, battalion warscrolls, the triumph table, and scenarios, it seems like you could have dozens of different effects on the field completely separate from whatever rules the units themselves bring. A lot of those effects are positional (units near this terrain gain this effect) or passive (rules always in effect), but I guess there isn't a lot there otherwise. I mean, scenarios have the power to affect deployment and potential goals, but there's only been about 20 scenarios released so far and they aren't all winners.
And while we're on the topic of White Dwarf - you're reaching out and sticking a finger in a wound that is deeper than you imagine ( I remember you stating in one of your posts that you're just entering GW's games)
Yeah, I'm new to GW games, but I used to buy White Dwarfs back in the day due to the painting tips and fancy pictures. I picked up one recently with Age of Sigmar and was surprised to see how small they were (practically pamphlets), and that they were now weekly. The content was okay, I guess (still great pictures of models and painting tips), but it was all focused around the current releases that week. I can easily see how people would be less than thrilled at the new format.
As I said, I'm still willing to wait on while GW piles up content. If they pull it off better than how they're doing it now - great. From what I've seen till now I'm not impressed - my opinion is that the whole execution is pretty average and not befitting the company that everybody compares everything with (in a good or bad manner).
Personally, I feel like AoS is doing pretty good. Maybe it is because I'm used to other mini games, none of which started with any releases outside of starter boxes. I think I got into Warmachine right at the beginning (before the beginning, actually), it was some time before there was anything to expand the initial battlegroups with. Having two months of weekly releases is pretty amazing to me, even though they are largely fancier versions of the starter set (so I haven't bought any). And the books are too expensive and too frequent. But at least there's something instead of just a starter set and dead air for months. Even now Warmachine only releases one or two models per faction every month or two.
Klerych wrote: If force A > force B, then force B should grow in size to match force A.
If force B < force A but it can't be expanded, then force A has to be cut down for the match to be fair OR both players come up with a scenario to counter the disproportion.
Basic logic. And as I said earlier, what if the player A comes with tanks, griffons and bajillion other models? Is it selfish to ask him to back down because he brought 3 times more models that are 10 times stronger? How dare the regular player expect to be allowed to fight something more even! Instead of agreeing on points level you just agree on power level. Bringing 3000pts against 1000pts is just like bringing 30 bloodthirsters against 30 greatswords, only difference is that you sort it out during preparation of the game rather than back home while making the list. AoS rules say explicitly that you build your force on the go before each match.
I mean, this is pretty much what it boils down to. I wouldn't really describe it as "selfish", one way or the other though. If player A wants to play with 30 bloodthirsters on a 12' table with the full Chaos Dreadhold, and player B just owns a starter set, player B should find a new opponent. Trying to make it work is *hopeless*.
If Player A is stuck on what he wants to play, he's not being selfish; he's just being unrealistic in finding anyone to play with This is hyperbole,. of course, as I don't think anyone actually owns 30 bloodthirsters (I'm waiting for someone to post in a picture so that I eat my words). In real life, what happens is Player A just has too superior a force for B, and for whatever reasons, they just won't be able to have a fun game together. No shame in that, better to identify it than to waste one or both peoples' time.
Where the whole points thing comes along is when A and B have the same number of points but A is superior to B in a significant way, and A doesn't want to adjust his battle force, even though both can recognize it. This is something I've seen in nearly every wargame I've ever come across where list-building and points are involved, and generally, the more models the game allows and the more special rules (less bland, whatever you want to call it) the more asymmetry is possible.
If GW did their job in the first place A and B would be equally matched.
Seriously, this is a uniquely GW problem. Absolute perfect balance is never going to be a reachable goal but I can't name another tabletop wargame on the market right now where there is a gulf between casual and competitive players because balance is so bad.
As has already been stated above, a casual warmachine player does not encounter the same problems a casual GW player does when playing a tournament gamer.
Meanwhile, while playing Kings of War I don't have to worry if what I bring is too overpowered against my enemy, and vice versa.
This is really a problem unique to GW, and people are treating AoS like it's the Emperor's new clothes. I'm not saying it can't be fun but don't pretend that having no points is a) innovative b) the most bestest thing ever and c) will weed TFG players out.
heartserenade wrote: Meanwhile, while playing Kings of War I don't have to worry if what I bring is too overpowered against my enemy, and vice versa.
That is a good thing...it you like Kings of War. I have looked over it and went "Meh..."
This is really a problem unique to GW
No it is not "Unique" to GW. BattleTech has some real balance issues along with Crimson Skies. Even Star Fleet Battles have some serious issues and I think it is the closest thing to a perfect rules set out there. Now some of the newer games are better than some, but some are not.
, and people are treating AoS like it's the Emperor's new clothes.
And what about us who are not treating that way?
I'm not saying it can't be fun but don't pretend that having no points is a) innovative b) the most bestest thing ever and c) will weed TFG players out.
What about those of us who seem to just think it is a fun game, nothing more, nothing less?
You know, I'm gonna throw something else in the mix of why AoS -- or at least AoS style play -- makes it a good game to some people.
In my personal situation, I play with the same 6 people every two weeks (approximately) for an evening. The three things that I need most out of a miniature wargame are, in order:
1. A wide variety of really great models; this is by far the most important thing to me.
2. Game mechanics that are enjoyable. It has to be fun to go through the motions of the game.
3. The ability for either player to have a 50:50 chance of winning regardless of skill or game knowledge
#3 is actually REALLY important in our small, closed group of friends as a part of our recipe for success for 15+ years. I *know* I am a better gamer than at least 3 people in my group. I just spend way more time delving into the nitty-gritty, and exhaustively reading into rules, and am probably a better tactician, generally speaking. But I don't want to win more than half the games, give or take. Because it would really suck for 3 people to lose most of their games if paired with the 3 that are just generally more competitively-minded.
To me, that's the furthest thing from fun. And it would be for the people that lost too (including me, if I were one of them); and eventually, some of those people would just give up and do something else.
This is why when we play 40k, we do a lot of scenarios; the armies are carefully designed so that it's fair, not only from the perspective of army-versus-army, but player-versus-player.
To me, a fun game is, if both people are trying their hardest, both people have about the same chance to win -- regardless of how well the know the game, the rules, how experienced they are, or even how smart they are. And a big part of that is just because I play the same people all the time.
It's also worth noting that to me, a game like Hearthstone, where players are ranked and matched against equally skilled players is a much better test of skill than a tabletop miniature game. Suffice it to say, when I come to the tabletop, I'm not really looking for a test of skill, or a reinforcement of my personal cleverness. I do things all the time at work that accomplish that, where my cleverness, wit, and intelligence (sometimes against real-life competitors, sometimes against real-life challenges) is rewarded with real-world success (and money); and I've accomplished that in video games in a formal, ranked setting, and in CCG tournaments, at least to a degree where I feel good about my accomplishment relative to my time and monetary input.
What I want is out of a miniature wargame... is miniatures... lots of cool miniatures... and an entertaining game with the best of friends
So what you want are a variety of options to give you the ability to customize your game? Or to have variety in the kind of games you can play? Or maybe just more things to consider, with complex relationships, that give your brain a workout when planning strategy?
The first one may be it. I’m definitely missing the opportunity to alter the play style of my models through gear customization, for example. There’s some choice in AoS, but it is mostly between two possible weapons – a better hitting sword or a longer reaching halberd for example. True, other games are guilty aswell of doing this, but they’ve got other aspects that even the odds for me. The latter two, I think GW, may catch up with by releasing new books. Whether I like the content is up to me, but I think that eventually it will be released. Why they don't release it now though? Why not do an Altar of War collected missions book like for 40k? Here the scenarios are surely welcome and the game would have benefited greatly from them. Put out 20 scenarios for 20 quid and give something that the players may play and extrapolate upon while waiting for the next Realm book release with its specific missions and terrain/game rules. As you said, not every scenario is on par with the others - if more scenarios were published there could've been the good chance that atleast half of them are nicely thought out. 20 good, immersive and detailed scenarios are more than enough for any one gamer to play for a year. On the other hand, I realize that there may be the issue of releasing just a certain number of ways to play, regarding mission rules, deplyments etc, before players start to complain about repetitiveness.
I'm curious what you think of the soon to be released dreadfort? (Other than how expensive it is). There are 4 different modules to it, each with their own sets of rules. It seems like assaulting it (or defending it) would present a very different gaming experience than normal. Combined with the other 4 pieces of scenery, the random scenery effects, the realm rules, battalion warscrolls, the triumph table, and scenarios, it seems like you could have dozens of different effects on the field completely separate from whatever rules the units themselves bring. A lot of those effects are positional (units near this terrain gain this effect) or passive (rules always in effect), but I guess there isn't a lot there otherwise. I mean, scenarios have the power to affect deployment and potential goals, but there's only been about 20 scenarios released so far and they aren't all winners.
Terrain is something I feel most FB players (at least in my area) never embraced. Unlike in 40k where a minimum amount of terrain is required to slow down fast armies and block shooting lanes for shooty ones, fantasy games here have always been played with two small pieces of woods which the players diligently avoided most of the time, Glancing over pictures of the recent ETC the trend is still the same, but the game's blocky mechanics restrict movement, so I guess it is a challenge to arrange a nice WFB table with something more than hills, shallow lakes and low-grass woods. FB players are still pissed off with anything GW and WFB related and terrain goes along for the hate ride. With this in mind I think it will mostly appeal and be used by new gamers, which are unburdened by the old game (or any game that has somehow imposed terrain restrictions on them - warmachine comes to mind and DZC isn’t exactly innocent in that matter aswell, as it tends to work only if there’s a specific type of terrain on the table). As AoS haven’t got the sprawling plethora of different small rules and exceptions to the rules to remember, players could give more thought to what actually is on the table than to what is in their rule books and are trying to project on the gaming surface. Instead of trying to stack combat resolution modifiers, they’ll be trying to get hold of specific pieces of terrain for some bonuses. I hope that the new rules for the fortress don’t turn up to be just another totem extension tower. Rules for breaking pieces of the wall would be a good addition IMO. In 40k we never played anything drastically different than the terrain outlined in the source book as there was already plenty of stuff to give attention on the table. For AoS this may be a more pronounced aspect. It may already be said, but I’m just sharing my thoughts as you asked. The price is somewhat prohibitive if you view the terrain only as something to give more playability and not as a miniature on its own. Personally I couldn’t get over it.
Concerning table playability and aesthetics aside, I think the largest bundle takes too much space on the table. It would be good for a game or two and then it will become a big diorama. Broken into pieces it can serve its function although not looking that cool any more. The direstone redoubt, Ravagers of ruin and summoners' gate bundles are great centerpiece bundles though (for Khorne/Chaos themed tables atleast - they've got too few skull details on them for a Space marine fortress for example ). Conveniently a fortress of some kind is also a requirement for one of the two missions (the other being the Ritual) which I like the most from the first AoS book.
But one has to admit that it's not exclusively GW thing. It happens in games and it's hard to avoid, some things are always outright better than others.
Warmachine is the most competitive tabletop game I've ever played and it really reminds me of Magic: The Gathering with all those little synergies, combos, reaction stuff and overall level of micromanagement and it's one of the most suitable games for tournament play... and then there's Butcher with his Doomreaver list. If you don't bring a list explicitly designed to counter him, you're screwed 7 out of 10 times. You either have to shoot his huge sword dudes fast enough for them to not reach you (heh, heh, reach*, get it?) which is hard with their speed being set at 7" and your weapon ranges at 10-14" or endure them with ridiculous amounts of Tough special rule which acts like 40k's Feel no Pain and then lash back out. And then there are trencher-centric lists that are 99% unplayable.
Next good example is X-Wing. Another great game very suitable for tournaments due to it's simple, intuitive rules and nice combos. And we're seeing particular few lists winning the game over and over.
See, if you bring 100pts of X-Wings against 100pts of "super Dash" or Chiraneau + Fel combo you'll almost always lose unless the dice really love you and your opponent is an idiot.
It's exactly the same with every other game - if you want to play an even, balanced game both players have to bring the most overpowered, optimized and min-maxed netlist available for their faction and only then you can see if they're balanced together. There's no mystery over the fact that if one player brings optimized force and the other doesn't, despite the same point limit the former is stronger than the latter. And it works the same with StarCraft or any other strategy game - filling your pop limit with 200 marines opens you to having your opponent fill his 200 pop limit with units that are hard counters to the marines. In Wargame: AirLand Battle if you bring no AA your ground vehicles are screwed.
Real balance only comes when two equally optimized forces have more or less equal chances to win and in every game you'll hear that some armies are better than others, because that cannot be avoided.
* - Reach is a special rule that makes your melee weapons' range 2"
When people talk about the story aspect of the game what do they mean. In warmachine for example you have tournaments pushing story further, is there something like that in AoS ?
This years warmachine league has rules for solos gaining xp and spending that xp on new abilities across multiple games.
As far as I am aware AoS does not have anything like that.
AoS actually strikes me as a very narrative light game since it lacks rules for game to game progression, all I am aware of is simply the scenarios in the expansion books that are expected to be played in order with the results of one not effecting the next.
The "narrative gameplay" excuse gives me the thrills each and every time.
First, if you want real examples of narrative gameplay, go check the story-driven campaigns for 5th edition WHFB.
Second, virtually any tabletop game can be turned into a "narrative gameplay" experience if the players are into it. You don't need a terribly lazy ruleset in order to do that.
jonolikespie wrote: This years warmachine league has rules for solos gaining xp and spending that xp on new abilities across multiple games.
As far as I am aware AoS does not have anything like that.
It has something like that - triumphs. They're random and there are still only a couple of tables, but this (and the manner of getting them) may change over time.
That is a good thing...it you like Kings of War. I have looked over it and went "Meh..."
Was it you who said that you have to play the game first (AoS) before you can critique the rules? It's a two-way street.
No it is not "Unique" to GW. BattleTech has some real balance issues along with Crimson Skies. Even Star Fleet Battles have some serious issues and I think it is the closest thing to a perfect rules set out there. Now some of the newer games are better than some, but some are not.
Can't say I'm familiar with those games so I can't comment. What I'm familiar with is Infinity, KoW and MtG and I don't see this big of a divide between "narrative" and "competitive" players, or this many heated rules debate.
And what about us who are not treating that way?
What about those of us who seem to just think it is a fun game, nothing more, nothing less?
If you're not the one I described, then why are you responding? I think what I said was very clear.
Warmachine is the most competitive tabletop game I've ever played and it really reminds me of Magic: The Gathering with all those little synergies, combos, reaction stuff and overall level of micromanagement and it's one of the most suitable games for tournament play... and then there's Butcher with his Doomreaver list. If you don't bring a list explicitly designed to counter him, you're screwed 7 out of 10 times. You either have to shoot his huge sword dudes fast enough for them to not reach you (heh, heh, reach*, get it?) which is hard with their speed being set at 7" and your weapon ranges at 10-14" or endure them with ridiculous amounts of Tough special rule which acts like 40k's Feel no Pain and then lash back out. And then there are trencher-centric lists that are 99% unplayable.
Doomies are spd6. Not 7. And while they can get tough via the ua, it's not exactly cheap. It's also it's better to fail that tough roll, as if they pass, they're still knocked down and have to sacrifice movement/action thereby holding back the rest of the squad. Which makes them vulnerable.
They also have victim stars when it comes to def and armour. And no pathfinder. You don't need a specific list to counter it at all. Pow10s utterly murder them. Any control effects (eg a caster with a 'lolcantcharge' fear), or area denial (stormwall, winter guard riflemen, ravagores, cyclone etc) tech, feat or anything that creates or uses difficult terrain completely shuts them down. There is a lot of single wound infantry hate out there. Bear in mind, none of this explicitly designed to counter him, it's pretty generic tech that people will be using anyway. And at the end of the day, you have butcher2 running ahead of them all. Medium base, random focus, low def and a very exposed position.
Korinov wrote: The "narrative gameplay" excuse gives me the thrills each and every time.
First, if you want real examples of narrative gameplay, go check the story-driven campaigns for 5th edition WHFB.
Second, virtually any tabletop game can be turned into a "narrative gameplay" experience if the players are into it. You don't need a terribly lazy ruleset in order to do that.
Agree. Even chess can be narrative, if you try hard enough (as demonstrated by Age of Empires 2 Intro):
Warmachine is the most competitive tabletop game I've ever played and it really reminds me of Magic: The Gathering with all those little synergies, combos, reaction stuff and overall level of micromanagement and it's one of the most suitable games for tournament play... and then there's Butcher with his Doomreaver list. If you don't bring a list explicitly designed to counter him, you're screwed 7 out of 10 times. You either have to shoot his huge sword dudes fast enough for them to not reach you (heh, heh, reach*, get it?) which is hard with their speed being set at 7" and your weapon ranges at 10-14" or endure them with ridiculous amounts of Tough special rule which acts like 40k's Feel no Pain and then lash back out. And then there are trencher-centric lists that are 99% unplayable.
Doomies are spd6. Not 7. And while they can get tough via the ua, it's not exactly cheap. It's also it's better to fail that tough roll, as if they pass, they're still knocked down and have to sacrifice movement/action thereby holding back the rest of the squad. Which makes them vulnerable.
They also have victim stars when it comes to def and armour. And no pathfinder. You don't need a specific list to counter it at all. Pow10s utterly murder them. Any control effects (eg a caster with a 'lolcantcharge' fear), or area denial (stormwall, winter guard riflemen, ravagores, cyclone etc) tech, feat or anything that creates or uses difficult terrain completely shuts them down. There is a lot of single wound infantry hate out there. Bear in mind, none of this explicitly designed to counter him, it's pretty generic tech that people will be using anyway. And at the end of the day, you have butcher2 running ahead of them all. Medium base, random focus, low def and a very exposed position.
Right, forgot about the speed, been a while since I played against them. And with tough I meant myself and my trollbloods who tend to miraculously survive the onslaught to live long enough to punch back (Madrak brick).
Thing is - shooting is very, very scarce in the game and it's often one turn only as the ranges are ridiculously short, and frankly, there's really enough of those dudes for them to reach you, even if they take heavy fire for two turns and you know what P+S 13 weapon master, reach magical weapons can do to basically anything. Models, that are immune to spells and have Berserk special rule. With 6 for 6 points at SPD of 6, Advance Deployment, Abomination and Fearless. You really have to admit that 6 points is a bargain for them. Not to mention them costing actually 5 points in his tier list which is really bonkers as it contains all the models you would ever want with him - Manhunters, Fenris, Yuri, War Dogs. You rarely get to kill all of them in one unit, and you're looking at several more running 12" up to you (that's a first or second turn charge, by the way, especially that their threat range is actually 14" due to reach, so we're looking at 10" deployment zone + 6" advance deployment range + 14" threat range = 30 inches of threat turn one!) along with solos. Something -is- going to reach you and God forbid he gets to activate eButcher's feat for the tokens and let, say, Fenris chop through your army.
I have yet to see a "generic" (well-rounded) list to win against properly played eButcher who knows which units to sacrifice and which are charging and your point of trenchers being better in hands of a pro player than butcher played by an idiot... well, yeah, probably true, but equally skilled players? Please.
To not make this off-topic, I just was pointing out that even the most balanced and tightest-ruled games also have problems with total balance because some things are always outright worse than others due to various factors.
Thing is - shooting is very, very scarce in the game and it's often one turn only as the ranges are ridiculously short, and frankly, there's really enough of those dudes for them to reach you, even if they take heavy fire for two turns and you know what P+S 13 weapon master, reach magical weapons can do to basically anything.
.
They still need to get there to do 'basically anything'.
Shooting Is 'Very very scarce'? Rubbish. Utter rubbish. In any of my khador lists, I'll be fielding the winter guard Death Star (up to fifteen 8' sprays), winter guard riflemen with joe (14' rat5 boosted and suppressing fire), Nyss hunters along with a squad of widowmakers. Cygnar. Ret. protectorate. All have solid ranged options. Heck, even cryx can bile thrall purge. On the hordes side also, you have decent access to ranged set ups. Legion. Done. Skorne. Done. Circle and trolls? Doable. Along with berzerking warpwolves and arm/tough spam.
Most armies in the game are capable of putting together a decent firing line as part of any fifty point list.
Two turns is enough to clear enough of them out, and let's not forget thst I have the rest of my list to play with too. Plus, as I mentioned various area denial tools. Epic irusk. One of my go to casters. Clear out a wave or two of doomies, pop feat. No charges. Two more truns of clearing them out.
Models, that are immune to spells and have Berserk special rule. With 6 for 6 points at SPD of 6, Advance Deployment, Abomination and Fearless. You really have to admit that 6 points is a bargain for them. Not to mention them costing actually 5 points in his tier list which is really bonkers as it contains all the models you would ever want with him - Manhunters, Fenris, Yuri, War Dogs.
No argument. They're a brilliant unit. Then again, abomination is a double edged sword, and lets not forget the victim stars (13/14 doesn't scream survival) and the lack of pathfinder. And yes, spell immunity. Double edged sword. I can't put anything on them either. They're also not immune to bullets, swords, corrosion, fire etc etc.
You rarely get to kill all of them in one unit, and you're looking at several more running 12" up to you (that's a first or second turn charge, by the way, especially that their threat range is actually 14" due to reach, so we're looking at 10" deployment zone + 6" advance deployment range + 14" threat range = 30 inches of threat turn one!) along with solos. Something -is- going to reach you and God forbid he gets to activate eButcher's feat for the tokens and let, say, Fenris chop through your army
.
I play the list. I know what it can do. It doesn't really matter what squad the doomy is in, it's one less doomy to worry about.
Assuming they go first it's a 7 plus 6 deployment zone. If thry go second, thryre screwed as I've got my stuff in position to counter them. First or second turn charge? Sure. If I play terribly. And if there is no terrain. Lack of pathfinder hurts them severely. They're not going anywhere when I drop a control feat, or put down a suppressing fire marker from a colossal, cyclone etc between them and my dudes (auto hitting pow12s for the win). You say you have trolls? Meat mountain and grissel. No orders means no charges. No running. they're walking in. Gives you even more time to drop them all. Double warders with the krielstone aura, and all that means a hell of a loot of soakage.so many options really,
Something will reach the lines. Sure. Maybe. And I'll deal with it then. What's left of the army after I've murdered anything else.its not a very resilient army and its quite possible to shut it down on the way in. Fenris. 13/16. Butcher. Up front and vulnerable.
I have yet to see a "generic" (well-rounded) list to win against properly played eButcher who knows which units to sacrifice and which are charging and your point of trenchers being better in hands of a pro player than butcher played by an idiot... well, yeah, probably true, but equally skilled players? Please.
.
Never mentioned trenchers. And yes, I've seen well rounded lists played well take on and beat mad dogs. So yeah, my anecdotal evidence counters your anecdotal evidence.
Korinov wrote: The "narrative gameplay" excuse gives me the thrills each and every time.
First, if you want real examples of narrative gameplay, go check the story-driven campaigns for 5th edition WHFB.
Second, virtually any tabletop game can be turned into a "narrative gameplay" experience if the players are into it. You don't need a terribly lazy ruleset in order to do that.
Indeed! This "narrative versus competitive" false dichotomy conflated with the "balanced versus free-for-all" false dichotomy has led people to say it's impossible to make balanced games (which is false) and that anyway they are bad because balance means something stupid..
Any good wargames rules can be used for narrative play, and also can be balanced. Think about it logically. A wargame is a mathematical model. Of course it can be balanced, if the designers want to put the effort into it.
3. The ability for either player to have a 50:50 chance of winning regardless of skill or game knowledge
That defeats the entire purpose of playing a strategy game for me. Granted, there's always the element of luck, but if learning to be a better player is irrelevant, then it's utterly pointless and you might as well have the turning wheel from LIFE and just win or lose at random.
(Crap, I better not give GW any ideas.)
3. The ability for either player to have a 50:50 chance of winning regardless of skill or game knowledge
That defeats the entire purpose of playing a strategy game for me. Granted, there's always the element of luck, but if learning to be a better player is irrelevant, then it's utterly pointless and you might as well have the turning wheel from LIFE and just win or lose at random.
(Crap, I better not give GW any ideas.)
Too late. GW already put a spinny thing in Storm of Magic.
That is a good thing...it you like Kings of War. I have looked over it and went "Meh..."
Was it you who said that you have to play the game first (AoS) before you can critique the rules? It's a two-way street.
Yes I am one of a number who said that.
My "Meh..." was I looked at the rule and was un-inspired by them. That did not say I did not like them. I did not say I hate them. I felt...meh about them.
I probably would play it if I had the Models to do such a few times to see if my opinion was wrong.
I have done that with Maulafax. I played it and I had a good time, but not enough to build the armies I would need to play it.
I want to really try and play Warmachine and have the figures to Proxy it. After reading the rules and having a few failed attempts to play and not being able to get any one who was willing to show us what we were doing wrong I stopped trying.
Good old Storm of Magic, aka the stuff nobody ever saw anyone playing...and rightfully so. The spinning wheel idea actually wasn't too bad, though. It had fun potential and if someone with basic game design knowledge would pick the idea up, there's potential.
3. The ability for either player to have a 50:50 chance of winning regardless of skill or game knowledge
That defeats the entire purpose of playing a strategy game for me. Granted, there's always the element of luck, but if learning to be a better player is irrelevant, then it's utterly pointless and you might as well have the turning wheel from LIFE and just win or lose at random. (Crap, I better not give GW any ideas.)
When I expanded on it below, though, I said that this assumes both people are trying their hardest. It's really no different than playing chess and taking out a knight and rook, because you're a better player than the other person. It's also no different than playing a TBS or RTS against AI, where the AI gets more units because it's an inferior player that makes stupid choices.
Again, remember the context. I'm playing with the same people each time, over a periods of many years; I don't want to win 9/10 games against one person, and lose 9/10 games against another person because they're better or worse players. I certainly don't want that because my armies are better or worse designed. That just isn't very fun for anyone. At some point, if you play with people enough, you know how good they are, and how good you are relative to them, and the entertainment value (for me) comes in playing the game, not in the win/loss; but the win/loss IS important, and the distribution should not be severely skewed.
3. The ability for either player to have a 50:50 chance of winning regardless of skill or game knowledge
That defeats the entire purpose of playing a strategy game for me. Granted, there's always the element of luck, but if learning to be a better player is irrelevant, then it's utterly pointless and you might as well have the turning wheel from LIFE and just win or lose at random.
(Crap, I better not give GW any ideas.)
When I expanded on it below, though, I said that this assumes both people are trying their hardest. It's really no different than playing chess and taking out a knight and rook, because you're a better player than the other person. It's also no different than playing a TBS or RTS against AI, where the AI gets more units because it's an inferior player that makes stupid choices.
Again, remember the context. I'm playing with the same people each time, over a periods of many years; I don't want to win 9/10 games against one person, and lose 9/10 games against another person because they're better or worse players. I certainly don't want that because my armies are better or worse designed. That just isn't very fun for anyone. At some point, if you play with people enough, you know how good they are, and how good you are relative to them, and the entertainment value (for me) comes in playing the game, not in the win/loss; but the win/loss IS important, and the distribution should not be severely skewed.
I don't understand your meaning. What, if not players skill, should determine the winner in a war game? (And not some one-off super specific thing you and your group does.)
I want to try AOS, but I can’t.
I can’t because I feel as though I have been betrayed by GW to many times now, I have a large amount of nerd rage because of AOS.
It killed my most favorite game of all times, I love fantasy, I loved formations, I loved my movement trays, and I miss the tactics.
In fantasy you could have a very strong army but still lose because of bad unit moves, causing you to get flanked or overrun. It was a unique game compared to 40k, but now they are almost indistinguishable.
The rules just keep merging closer and closer to both the fantasy universe and 40k having the same rule book (I know some people are yelling, but I would bet money that’s what GW goal is)
The sad point is, now my army’s don’t work. I will no longer be able to show up at a shop and find a fantasy game. I have a guy at my local shop who keeps trying to talk me into at least trying a gameof AOS, but every time I contemplate getting my models, I lose all ambition.
I look at my shelf full of fantasy book that have no value or meaning any more (except personal value to me), I can’t even ebay my old book, no one wants them. Im stuck. im so mad at GW with the releases of the End Times (the very expensive and now obsolete books and models) and then they drop AOS in my lap, and do the typical GW move, release new more expensive models that all the competitive players just gobble up ASAP. Shame on any fantasy players who accept this game and have already put all their models on round bases
AOS was not needed; it could have just been a standalone expansion like Mordheim.
I for one wont, and can’t allow myself to play AOS, no matter how fun or great you think it is now, it just means latter down the road GW will want more money and will write it out with another game with a stupid title.
Im not saying AOS is all bad, I just want all the people whom are pro AOS to take a look at us old fantasy vets and know why most of us feel the way we do. As corny as it is im very sad that I can never go to a game store to find a pickup game of fantasy ever again.
And as cool and fun as the new glimmering game of AOS and its models go, the end times were called “The End Times” and im going to leave the game of fantasy that way, Ended.
CoreCommander wrote: Why they don't release it now though? Why not do an Altar of War collected missions book like for 40k? Here the scenarios are surely welcome and the game would have benefited greatly from them. Put out 20 scenarios for 20 quid and give something that the players may play and extrapolate upon while waiting for the next Realm book release with its specific missions and terrain/game rules. As you said, not every scenario is on par with the others - if more scenarios were published there could've been the good chance that atleast half of them are nicely thought out. 20 good, immersive and detailed scenarios are more than enough for any one gamer to play for a year. On the other hand, I realize that there may be the issue of releasing just a certain number of ways to play, regarding mission rules, deplyments etc, before players start to complain about repetitiveness.
I take my words back. Having a look at the different books I see there are about 22 scenarios + the scenarios in the new dreadhold book. It was ignorance on my part as I'm only familiar with the first book of which I liked only 2 missions.
I look at my shelf full of fantasy book that have no value or meaning any more (except personal value to me), I can’t even ebay my old book, no one wants them. Im stuck.
Don't be quick to judge. Such things become expensive with time. Check Rogue trader for example. In 10 years you'll have the last of the old WFB books. Besides they have sentimental value. I still browse through my older 40k books with nostalgia.
Im not saying AOS is all bad, I just want all the people whom are pro AOS to take a look at us old fantasy vets and know why most of us feel the way we do. As corny as it is im very sad that I can never go to a game store to find a pickup game of fantasy ever again.
Believe me I understand you, but is most of your pain not linked to the fact that there will be no more NEW players to WHFB? It was already a dying game and a lot of people were on the mind that it had lived out its life time. Something had to be done.
P.S. By the way, I'm sorry if I'm bothering you with questions and all you wanted to do is vent out your frustration - it is perfectly understandable.
GraywarTS wrote: I want to try AOS, but I can’t.
I can’t because I feel as though I have been betrayed by GW to many times now, I have a large amount of nerd rage because of AOS.
It killed my most favorite game of all times, I love fantasy, I loved formations, I loved my movement trays, and I miss the tactics.
In fantasy you could have a very strong army but still lose because of bad unit moves, causing you to get flanked or overrun. It was a unique game compared to 40k, but now they are almost indistinguishable.
The rules just keep merging closer and closer to both the fantasy universe and 40k having the same rule book (I know some people are yelling, but I would bet money that’s what GW goal is)
The sad point is, now my army’s don’t work. I will no longer be able to show up at a shop and find a fantasy game. I have a guy at my local shop who keeps trying to talk me into at least trying a gameof AOS, but every time I contemplate getting my models, I lose all ambition.
I look at my shelf full of fantasy book that have no value or meaning any more (except personal value to me), I can’t even ebay my old book, no one wants them. Im stuck. im so mad at GW with the releases of the End Times (the very expensive and now obsolete books and models) and then they drop AOS in my lap, and do the typical GW move, release new more expensive models that all the competitive players just gobble up ASAP. Shame on any fantasy players who accept this game and have already put all their models on round bases
AOS was not needed; it could have just been a standalone expansion like Mordheim.
I for one wont, and can’t allow myself to play AOS, no matter how fun or great you think it is now, it just means latter down the road GW will want more money and will write it out with another game with a stupid title.
Im not saying AOS is all bad, I just want all the people whom are pro AOS to take a look at us old fantasy vets and know why most of us feel the way we do. As corny as it is im very sad that I can never go to a game store to find a pickup game of fantasy ever again.
And as cool and fun as the new glimmering game of AOS and its models go, the end times were called “The End Times” and im going to leave the game of fantasy that way, Ended.
Many of us playing AOS are "old fantasy vets". I've been playing since 3rd edition and own over a dozen large painted armies. My shelves have far more books than I need, and a run of White Dwarf going back to issue 1. I'm having fun with AOS and rotating what armies I play. So far have had fun with all of them. I understand if someone tries the game and doesn't want to play it. For me, I'd rather those armies get some exercise.
MWHistorian wrote: I don't understand your meaning. What, if not players skill, should determine the winner in a war game? (And not some one-off super specific thing you and your group does.)
Let's make it simpler. You and I are good buddies, and we like playing WMH (or some other game) with each other. You win 95% of the games because you're a better player, but we enjoy each other's company and gaming with each other. What would you suggest?
In golf, you have handicaps. In chess, you take out some pieces. In tennis, you can play 2:1. et cetera.
Once you prove that you're a more skillful player,. the next 100 games will be a waste of time, in a game that is based purely on skill, and where one person is more skillful than the other. Perhaps the other person can accumulate more skill over time -- but to take chess as an example, skill levels often plateau for long periods of time; or sometimes plateau permanently, because that's as good as that player's going to get, at least barring serious study and tutelage.
I play with a group of private friends; I don't think this is some super specific thing unique to me. I think lots of people prefer this to pickup games. The point is, if I know that I'm a better player than my buddy, I want to give him a handicap so that he has an even chance of winning.
The purpose of a miniature wargame, for me, is for two or more people who are trying their hardest to win. But because I value the social interactions and friendships much more than the outcome of the game, I want everyone to have an equal chance to win, with their skill level factored into the equation.
MWHistorian wrote: I don't understand your meaning. What, if not players skill, should determine the winner in a war game? (And not some one-off super specific thing you and your group does.)
Let's make it simpler. You and I are good buddies, and we like playing WMH (or some other game) with each other. You win 95% of the games because you're a better player, but we enjoy each other's company and gaming with each other. What would you suggest?
In golf, you have handicaps. In chess, you take out some pieces. In tennis, you can play 2:1. et cetera.
Once you prove that you're a more skillful player,. the next 100 games will be a waste of time, in a game that is based purely on skill, and where one person is more skillful than the other. Perhaps the other person can accumulate more skill over time -- but to take chess as an example, skill levels often plateau for long periods of time; or sometimes plateau permanently, because that's as good as that player's going to get, at least barring serious study and tutelage.
I play with a group of private friends; I don't think this is some super specific thing unique to me. I think lots of people prefer this to pickup games. The point is, if I know that I'm a better player than my buddy, I want to give him a handicap so that he has an even chance of winning.
The purpose of a miniature wargame, for me, is for two or more people who are trying their hardest to win. But because I value the social interactions and friendships much more than the outcome of the game, I want everyone to have an equal chance to win, with their skill level factored into the equation.
I do not think that I am unique in this.
I'd suggest teaching the other guy until his skill level is adequate. This isn't learning concert cello, it's a game. It won't take that long. That way, you're not dumbing yourself down cheapening the victory for whoever gets it.
Now, if the guy just can't get up to the same level, then you adjust the points or however you want to do it. But once again, the ENTIRE point of doing that is so that player skill will be the determining factor. So, it still goes back to: What besides player skill should determine victory?
Also, not everyone has the luxury of a close group of friends. For that, the game needs to be workable for pick up games.
GraywarTS wrote: Im not saying AOS is all bad, I just want all the people whom are pro AOS to take a look at us old fantasy vets and know why most of us feel the way we do. As corny as it is im very sad that I can never go to a game store to find a pickup game of fantasy ever again.
And as cool and fun as the new glimmering game of AOS and its models go, the end times were called “The End Times” and im going to leave the game of fantasy that way, Ended.
First of all, I totally understand how depressing it is for your favorite game and world to be discontinued. It has happened to me in any number of RPGs.
But how a successor is perceived is all a matter of perspective. If you think of AoS as a totally different game than Fantasy that uses different models, it becomes a game to test on its own merits.
That GW is not making a WHFB 9e should not be a shocker to anyone -- if you go into virtually any independent store and ask them how WHFB sold, they'll tell you that its sales were horrible. But if you enjoy 8e, there's nothing stopping you from playing that, with the same models, right? You can even go buy more models.
Likewise, perspective is important for ET: it's a glorious sendoff for a 30 year franchise that GW didn't have to do, and probably wasn't even close to profitable. But they did it to tie off an era, and start a new one. Would you have been happier if ET was never published, they came out with AoS, and simply never published another WHFB book, and kept the old books on the shelf?
I'd suggest teaching the other guy until his skill level is adequate. This isn't learning concert cello, it's a game. It won't take that long. That way, you're not dumbing yourself down cheapening the victory for whoever gets it. Now, if the guy just can't get up to the same level, then you adjust the points or however you want to do it. But once again, the ENTIRE point of doing that is so that player skill will be the determining factor. So, it still goes back to: What besides player skill should determine victory? Also, not everyone has the luxury of a close group of friends. For that, the game needs to be workable for pick up games.
Handicapped player skill should determine victory - to use the analogy of chess and golf.
If people play relatively infrequently, and if they are not so inclined, they really don't get that much better. There's a big difference between little tricks and combos (which is just game knowledge), and the ability think strategically. For example, a good CCG player will be able to tell you with great accuracy at any time past the first few turns what cards his opponent has in his hand, what they're saving, and what they're likely waiting for or likely to play. You can't teach that, because not everyone has the memory, quick thinking, and intuition to do so. Likewise, a good wargames player in a game that allows them to do so will be able to trick, outmaneuver and otherwise outplay their opponent, and this isn't something that can necessarily be taught. Not everyone can imagine the possibilities and play out the next 5 turns in their head, based on actions you'd take -- and do so quickly enough to not piss off your opponent.
You're right: you should try to help someone that's not as good a player become a better player, but at some point, just like golf, your game plateaus -- especially if you don't play a ton, and the game isn't that important to you (it's just something you do for entertainment).
Incidentally, after a period of time, playing with a group of friends becomes a choice, rather than a luxury. All you have to do is make friends with the people you play on games nights that you enjoy playing with, and arrange to play with them This is how our group formed... no magic in it at all.
And I agree with you: the lack of a mechanism for balanced armies makes pickup games of a predetermined size harder.
Edit: MW, think of it this way -- if you play a ranked game online (like Hearthstone or StarCraft), every win makes it progressively harder to keep winning, because you'll be matched with progressively more difficult players. To me, this is preferable to winning every game, because that would get boring really quickly. The goal of the game, for me, is to keep it equally challenging (roughly speaking) for both players. The outcome of the game is still determined by skill and good decision-making; the only difference is, the better player starts off with fewer resources or disadvantageous circumstances.
- let's look at board games instead, since they act much like miniature wargaming in that same sense.
this time
