I hate the ‘ten things’ clickbait you see over the Internet. You know the kind of thing, ten celebrities who have turned minging, or ten banned films you cannot watch.
But yeah, I click on them sometimes, in the vain hope something interesting will be on the other side.
1. Create a Unique Force Not Possible Before In days gone by, you were locked into a single army list, with the possibility of using ally rules to bring in a small detachment of something else – but that rarely happened, as there was always the whiff that someone using allies was trying to get round a weakness in their army.
Power gaming is, of course, meaningless in most Age of Sigmar battles, so that is the first barrier to go.
However, there is a much larger one – no army lists. You really can take what you like in your force in Age of Sigmar and while most people prefer to limit themselves to a single Grand Alliance, there is no reason to do so. This means you can come up with some really unique forces.
One I saw on the Internet was a ‘haunted wood’ force, based around the Sylvaneth but with Spirit Hosts added to represent, well, faeries for want of a better word.
Another I have seen someone come up with was a force of Free Peoples (whether you go Empire or Bretonnian is up to you) whose wizard was dabbling in the dark arts – specifically, necromancy. So, add a Necromancer to a Free Peoples force and have some Skeletons or Zombies on stand by; not deployed at the start of a battle but raised while you fight.
You night try Aelfs who have gotten themselves far too close to Slaanesh, Ogor mercenaries joining, well, anyone, or maybe a Dragon who is leading a force of all things reptilian.
Give your imagination free reign, and see what you can come up with!
2. Play Hero Deathmatch Got a bunch of mates and fancy a quick, but bloody and fun game? Play hero deathmatch!
You all select a single Hero from whichever army takes your fancy, and then fight until there is only one left!
If you are boring (!), you may stipulate a limit (say, 5 Wounds maximum) but if there are a few of you present, try playing with no limits. Sure, someone may bring Archaon or Nagash, but you will find everyone else quickly gangs up against him, making for a more level playing field. And just imagine the glory if your hero is the one to bring Archaon down!
A variant of this is to play King of the Hill, where you place a tall piece of scenery and make the victory condition to be the lone hero standing at the top of it after a certain time (whether you make it a number of minutes or number of rounds, doesn’t really matter which).
This kind of deathmatch game is really quick to play, plus it allows you to pull out heroes you might not use too often (just how good would Festus the Leechlord be, eh?). It is also very fast-paced, a lot of fun, doesn’t take long, and there are always backstabbing shenanigans as players make alliances with one another, then break them just as quickly!
3. Use Dungeon Floor Plans There is nothing in Age of Sigmar that says you need to play on a standard gaming table. If you have any dungeon floor plan tiles (and you can pick these up really cheap on eBay), lay them down and have an underground fight!
This will suit small forces (perhaps no more than 20 models or so) and small unit sizes, but you will find your battles take a completely different tone as bottlenecks are created and lone heroes try to fight their way clear of crowded corridors and caverns!
If you are feeling particularly creative, try putting together a Time of War sheet to handle dimly lit conditions, damp passageways and low ceilings.
If you want to take it a step further, add in rules for random monster encounters and have one force comprised of just four Heroes on foot – this will give you a bona fide dungeon bash game! If the Heroes achieve their objectives, give then a roll on a Triumph table for the next one, reflecting their accrued experience and treasure.
4. Have a Massive Dogfight If you don’t fancy going underground, how about soaring high above it? Clear your table of terrain, throw down a blue blanket and have yourself a dogfight that will blacken the skies!
Only flying units will be present, of course, so dust off your Demigryphs, give a shout to your Plague Drones, and put feathered cloaks on your Skink Priests.
Things are a bit more fluid in the air, so try increasing pile-in ranges to 6″ and watch your airborne units dance around each other.
5. Collect Lots of Small Forces Rather Than One Big One This is one I am very guilty of. While playing Fantasy Battle, I managed to accrue around 8,000 points of High Elves and in Warhammer 40,000 I was giving the entire chapter of Dark Angels a serious go.
However, you can approach things differently in Age of Sigmar. There is no requirement to build blocks of 40, 50 or 60 core troops before getting to the good stuff. Instead, just have 10 or 20 ‘core’ troops, add whatever you like in terms of Heroes and special units – and then move on to another force!
What you have created will be perfectly viable for a great many battles and you will have enough forces to gain many different perspectives of the Mortal Realms, possibly spending less money than you would have done on your mega-army.
6. Become a Games Master Age of Sigmar has no need of a third party Games Master or Referee – but there is no reason you cannot add one for more fun!
If a Games Master is present, you can easily add a ‘fog of war’ element to any game, with the two players only knowing a fraction of the Battleplan when they start. The Games Master can introduce new victory conditions as the game unfolds (or alter them completely!), announce special events that are triggered when, say, a unit moves too close to a specific piece of scenery, or even bring a new (but much smaller) force to the battlefield, perhaps the true owners of the territory who are angry that they have been invaded!
7. Create a New Warscroll Here is something that may take a moment to digest – there is no such thing as an overpowered unit in Age of Sigmar. You could have a model with a 1+ save that also ignores mortal wounds on a D6 roll of 4+, all the while dishing out D6 mortal wounds to every unit within 12″ automatically – and, given the right scenario and opposing force, it may be perfectly acceptable.
This means you can create your own Warscrolls.
Go ahead. Come up with a really cool idea for a unit, put the models together and then create a Warscroll. There is no need to make it the killiest thing that ever stalked a battlefield – it just needs to be interesting.
A good place to start is to create your own unique Hero or perhaps, if you have the models, revisit some of the old Regiments of Renown or Dogs of War units that Games Workshop have produced in the past. Who would not want to see Lumpin Croop and his Halflings take their place on the battlefield, or perhaps even Scarloc’s Wood Elf Archers (if you are old enough to remember those!).
You can really go to town here, and create a unit that will be truly memorable. Just follow the Golden Rule: Create a Warscroll because you want to make an interesting unit, not because you want to crush everything in your path.
8. Create Your Own Corner of the Realms We do not yet know whether the Mortal Realms are truly infinite but it does seem that, to all intents and purposes, they are at the moment.
So, create your own little corner in which to fight your battles.
Grab yourself a blank sheet of paper, pick a Realm, and start sketching out terrain. Add some cities and fortresses. Figure out who lives there, and who they are friends with. Who are their leaders? Who do they most hate? What do they eat, and who do they trade with?
If you have run RPGs in the past, this will be right up your street but I would encourage anyone to give it a go. If you fancy doing this with training wheels to begin with, take a look at some of the area maps in the Age of Sigmar campaign books, then pick a place that is just mentioned but not detailed in the text – then add the details yourself.
This, incidentally, is exactly what the designers at GW want you to do when they add those extra places – they are intended to fire your imagination and get you creating your own games!
Above all, remember the Mortal Realms are truly fantastic and mythical, so there is no need to limit yourself to a fantasy version of medieval Europe. We have already seen lakes of boiling blood, floating islands, gravity-and-time warping mini-worlds… This is an area where you can really unleash your imagination.
9. Play Through the Official Campaign Storyline There is a core storyline line running through Age of Sigmar, beginning with the starter set and carrying on with the big campaign hardbacks. And here is the secret… it is actually quite good.
If you are of a mind (quite possibly a demented one, as you will see), play through each of the Battleplans in these books, in sequence, collecting and painting each force required as you go.
I warn you (and I speak from experience!), you will be looking at a lot of models by the time you get to the end of Quest for Ghal Maraz. However, you will also have the core of several forces (see Point 5 above), giving you a truly varied Warhammer experience.
You will also be on the cutting edge of the Age of Sigmar storyline, and have plenty of opportunities to create your own twists and turns, watching your own heroes rise and fall alongside the Big Names such as Gardus and Lord Khul.
10. Create Your Own Campaign With all that under your belt, you will be ready to create your own storyline in the Mortal Realms, with your own Battleplans and own Time of War sheets – and perhaps your own Warscrolls as well. Age of Sigmar is a true toolbox system, which you can pick and choose from, or add to, shaping it to be the game you want.
There are many different ways to approach a campaign, but a good start is to do something similar to the campaign books Games Workshiop have produced. Draft the outline of a story revolving around a few characters and their forces, create Battleplans to enact their conflicts, and then take the war to the tabletop for something that is truly your own.
Well, that would be my list of 10 Cool Things to do in the Age of Sigmar. What are yours?
Great post! Lots of neat ideas mentioned, and I really wish I had as much time to explore AoS like you have Matt! (Is that a little nod to my Desperados with the mention of the wizard dabbling in necromancy? ;-)
I think we could also start a fun mini-game coming up with click bait titles:
"Balance all your AoS games using this one weird trick..." "Find out why Kings of War players are furious over the new Age of Sigmar campaign book!"
Anyway, let me contribute to this thread:
1. Build a table with crazy terrain!
Trying to manoeuvre in WHFB on a terrain heavy board could be like:
But no more! Create awesome and dynamic tables and have fights down alleyways, across mountain paths, on rickety bridges or inside a dungeon (or all on the same board).
2. Deploy your units in a star-shape
Because... Why not?
Deploy your archers in a semi circle when guarding something, deploy your Killy units into a giant pincer formation. Have fun with the shapes of your units and see what cool tactics you can develop.
3. Deploy your units in blocks.
If you like the aesthetic of block combat, why not play a game with your opponent where all units have to be deployed as blocks again?
A fun game on the side, tell people watching the game you are playing "Kings of War" and see how long it takes them to notice otherwise :-p
4. Collect a small force for each of the Grand Alliances
I have an Empire/Dwarves army, a Vampire Counts army, a Night Goblin army and a Skaven Army. My mind was blown when I realised I could now add the entire range into my collection.
5. Don't buy any books
Screw books! Use the money for models! All the rules are free :-)
(Although the books do look cool, especially the new one...)
6. Use points
Try a different comp every week to get some close fought competitive games in.
7. Don't use points
Throw caution to the wind and see how fun games can be when the forces aren't exactly equal - aim to be the underdog for an extra challenge.
8. Take scenarios from other games
The top 2 I want to try out are:
40k 3rd Edition - Cleanse
Necromunda - Shoot-out (imagine using the build up to represent a parley!)
9. Make a cross-alliance army
- Empire soldiers who have captured some trolls and prod them into battle with spears.
- A Dark Elf sorceress who dabbles in necromancy and raises an army of dead.
- Skaven and Goblins make a dark pact to take on some dwarves.
The possibilities are endless!
10. Buy that one model you have always had an eye on
Who cares if you don't collect the faction - it is much more likely to see the table in AoS now either as a quickly alliance or part of a special scenario :-)
Summoning abuse! Do you truly want to be a champion of the mortal realms? Then sacrifice your hard earned money to the gods and buy models by the bucketload! When your Chaos Lord summons a unit of Slaves to Darkness put down a block of 100 Chaos Warriors. Huzzah!
2: Burn your money:
Yeah, this is a running theme in Age of Sigmar. Spend the better part of $200 on 30 models. More like Age of Spending, am I right?
3: Ruin your opponents model:
Base overlapping is totally a thing in AoS. If you really hate your opponent stand a heavy metal miniature on his carefully crafted basing.
4: Painting skulls:
Do you really like human skulls? Do you love the shape, the color.. the taste of human skulls? Well, you're in luck, cause in Age of Sigmar there are all sorts of skulls to be loving painted. Hell, they made an entire building kit devoted to the idea of putting skulls on everything.
5: Forge the narrative:
You can tell all sorts of stories in Age of Sigmar! Tell the story about how the stalwart Stormcast Eternals went to battle with the monstrous forces of Chaos! Recount tales of how your sinister Dark Elves went to battle with the horrors of Nagash! You can even watch a heroic yarn unwind of the thoroughly unpleasant Orcs fighting against the equally homely forces of the Ogres.
6: Build an awesome, creative table!:
In Age of Sigmar there are practically infinite realms. The possibilities for terrain are limitless. A medieval city in ruins? A classic. A blasted hellscape covered in the bones of the damned? Awesome-sauce. A realm that is completely underwater? Interesting!
Nah, just kidding! Buy a plastic Citadel Realm of Battle board and plastic GW trees! Express your own creativity by using mass produced terrain.
7: Get drunk while playing:
The best part of this is that Age of Sigmar is pretty thread-bare when it comes to rules so it won't be a problem when your mental faculties go to hell.
8: Screw the new lore. The Old World ftw:
Do you just hate the idea of Sigmarines? So do a lot of other people. Just use your current miniatures, say "Feth you" to the end times and have a blast in the old world.
9: Make an RPG setting:
Kind of hard to do but I'm sure in a few years GW will flesh out the parts of AoS that doesn't relate to selling miniatures I mean the mighty battles.
10: Play smaller games than WHFB:
I feel AoS is at it's best when it's played at smaller scales. Forget GW and their attempts to push mass battles. It's easier on the wallet and a better experience.
Oh god, yes! Catwalks are my fetish, man (Infinity is basically porn). What's the point of having a 3D game if you put all the 3D things off to the side out of the way? I like big wide open spaces as much as the next agoraphobic, but use some terrain to define some unique battlefield experiences once in a while.
Wait... is that Warmachine? On a table with actual terrain? And here I was just looking at PP's Widower's Woods kickstarter thinking to myself, PP just couldn't give less of a gak about terrain if they tried. The board looks like clip art from a free-to-play iOS game.
Yeah. The board tiles are pretty uninspired. Compare them to a game like Imperial Assault, that one wild west cthulu game who's name I forget, Space Hulk or the Assassin game.
Oh god, yes! Catwalks are my fetish, man (Infinity is basically porn). What's the point of having a 3D game if you put all the 3D things off to the side out of the way? I like big wide open spaces as much as the next agoraphobic, but use some terrain to define some unique battlefield experiences once in a while.
Wait... is that Warmachine? On a table with actual terrain? And here I was just looking at PP's Widower's Woods kickstarter thinking to myself, PP just couldn't give less of a gak about terrain if they tried. The board looks like clip art from a free-to-play iOS game.
ok, well remind me to never ever play infinity with you....ever.....
Oh god, yes! Catwalks are my fetish, man (Infinity is basically porn). What's the point of having a 3D game if you put all the 3D things off to the side out of the way? I like big wide open spaces as much as the next agoraphobic, but use some terrain to define some unique battlefield experiences once in a while.
Wait... is that Warmachine? On a table with actual terrain? And here I was just looking at PP's Widower's Woods kickstarter thinking to myself, PP just couldn't give less of a gak about terrain if they tried. The board looks like clip art from a free-to-play iOS game.
So much this! There are tons of amazing infinity terrain out there and its really nice to look at.
And I think this post can also be titled, 10 things you don't see warmahordes people doing.
Yeah, the table is for the Warmachine game, actually.
It's true all the points mentionned by Matt are actually doable with any other wargame. That said, I believe that he meant since the rules are simple to grasp and modulate, you can make your own stuff pretty much easily. After all, "balance" comes from agreement with your partner and you don't really have to care about points or something else. That's what makes your job of "game designer amateur" much more soother in AoS.
In that point of view, I agree with him. You can't really blame him to make the game he supports and loves more appealing.
But then, maybe the post is made in such a way you would believe that's someone who works for GW would totally write while trying to make it pass as if it was something only doable with AoS. And I must say I "only" play wargames for 20 years and even myself already did all these points with others wargames without difficulties as well. So...maybe it's not really "10 points for AoS", but "10 points to do with any skirmish wargame".
I have to admit, that's the one thing you can do in AoS that you can't really in WHFB - using really involved terrain. WHFB could be split into indivual units but I don't know how that'd play out.
That's what I was hoping AoS would bring - WHFB with skirmish formations, as I love playing on really dense terrain rather than open fields.
Every other point could easily be under "Ten Cool things to do in Wargames".
SilverMK2 wrote: I'm not really seeing anything in that list you can't do with any other fantasy or sci-fi game...
He didnt title it "Ten things to do in Age of Sigmar you can't do in any other game"
I get the game has disappointed/angered a lot of people but this forum is full of really reaching attempts to rail against it.
But he could pretty much label it "Ten Cool Things to do in Wargames". Yet he didn't, because the point is that this is a clear attempt to sell AoS. As such, divergent reactions are to be expected, and that is something I think Matt doesn't mind at all.
It's also a shameless clickbait. But I'm cool with that *Clicks the link*
Somehow my adblock didn't stop me seeing this thread....
Seriously though I can see how people would enjoy those things about AoS but the people saying you can do that with basically any skirmish wargame aren't wrong so I'm not totally sure what the point is... perhaps a 'your top 10 favourite things about AoS' thread would make more sense?
As often said before, this is a discussion forum. People can't expect to post an opinion or argument on a topic without someone taking issue and posting a counter-argument.
That is the nature of discussion and it is fine providing people keep to the forum rules.
jonolikespie wrote: Somehow my adblock didn't stop me seeing this thread....
God forbid MongooseMatt - one of the most consistently constructive posters on this board - share his enthusiasm about a game he likes with his fellow players on board about that game! Doesn't he know that this place is for cynics only, and we can only communicate through sarcasm and muttered comments under our breath?
Seriously though I can see how people would enjoy those things about AoS but the people saying you can do that with basically any skirmish wargame aren't wrong so I'm not totally sure what the point is... perhaps a 'your top 10 favourite things about AoS' thread would make more sense?
I can't speak for every skirmish wargame out there, but I know you can't do a bunch of these things in Warmachine:
1. Create a Unique Force Not Possible Before - In Warmachine, the factions don't work together, and because of the combo heavy nature of the game, creating suboptimal forces is a great way to have a very unfun gaming experience. Warmachine is a game built around a handful of builds - so much so that tournaments are won based on anticipating which builds you will end up facing.
2. Play Hero Deathmatch - In Warmachine, the casters are extremely unbalanced against each other individually, and if you played casters only, there's a great chance that Butcher or Feora will decimate the other casters before they get a chance to do anything. Retribution even has a caster with zero offensive capabilities.
4. Have a Massive Dogfight - Warmachine doesn't really have many flying units, and the game doesn't work without casters (of which, I can only think of two flying casters, both Cryx)
5. Collect Lots of Small Forces Rather Than One Big One - Because of the standard point size games, you'll have a minimum of a 25 pt army for each faction, since you can't combine stuff. Even then, most players prefer 50 pts, so you'll probably need a minimum of 50 pts too. It is very, very hard in Warmachine to dabble in multiple factions without committing to a large army. I say this as someone with 5 different WM armies (Cryx, Retribution, Menoth, Khador, Convergence).
7. Create a New Warscroll - Due to the precarious balance Warmachine enjoys, creating a new unit that doesn't horribly break the game is rather difficult. AoS is a simple game without innate balance, so it is easier to balance around the created unit rather than balancing the unit within the game's very specific framework.
9. Play Through the Official Campaign Storyline - I think the last campaign that Warmachine had was in the MK1 Colossals book. Everybody just plays Steamroller.
I'm less familiar with Infinity, though I think it does work well with the stated list.
jonolikespie wrote: Somehow my adblock didn't stop me seeing this thread....
God forbid MongooseMatt - one of the most consistently constructive posters on this board - share his enthusiasm about a game he likes with his fellow players on board about that game! Doesn't he know that this place is for cynics only, and we can only communicate through sarcasm and muttered comments under our breath?
It was a joke...
Sqorgar wrote: I can't speak for every skirmish wargame out there, but I know you can't do a bunch of these things in Warmachine:
1. Create a Unique Force Not Possible Before - In Warmachine, the factions don't work together, and because of the combo heavy nature of the game, creating suboptimal forces is a great way to have a very unfun gaming experience. Warmachine is a game built around a handful of builds - so much so that tournaments are won based on anticipating which builds you will end up facing.
2. Play Hero Deathmatch - In Warmachine, the casters are extremely unbalanced against each other individually, and if you played casters only, there's a great chance that Butcher or Feora will decimate the other casters before they get a chance to do anything. Retribution even has a caster with zero offensive capabilities.
4. Have a Massive Dogfight - Warmachine doesn't really have many flying units, and the game doesn't work without casters (of which, I can only think of two flying casters, both Cryx)
5. Collect Lots of Small Forces Rather Than One Big One - Because of the standard point size games, you'll have a minimum of a 25 pt army for each faction, since you can't combine stuff. Even then, most players prefer 50 pts, so you'll probably need a minimum of 50 pts too. It is very, very hard in Warmachine to dabble in multiple factions without committing to a large army. I say this as someone with 5 different WM armies (Cryx, Retribution, Menoth, Khador, Convergence).
7. Create a New Warscroll - Due to the precarious balance Warmachine enjoys, creating a new unit that doesn't horribly break the game is rather difficult. AoS is a simple game without innate balance, so it is easier to balance around the created unit rather than balancing the unit within the game's very specific framework.
9. Play Through the Official Campaign Storyline - I think the last campaign that Warmachine had was in the MK1 Colossals book. Everybody just plays Steamroller.
I'm less familiar with Infinity, though I think it does work well with the stated list.
So, if I understand correctly, you actually can do it all, but only with varying degrees of success. And one can't really bring balance issues into the fray as an excuse for things not working (especially in point #2 into the discussion because clearly, for example, a Hero Deathmatch between Archaon and Random Hero #2 is the most balanced thing ever. Unless, of course, one is willing to defend that such a matchup is perfectly fine and won't 100% of the times end up with Archaon's mount having its tummy filled with heroic flesh.)
Edit: Yay I succeeded in the Multiquote edit maze!
So, if I understand correctly, you actually can do it all, but only with varying degrees of success.
If, by varying degrees of success, you include "a complete failure", then yes. There's a huge difference between "I can physically do thing" and "I'm allowed to do thing" (or even "I'm encouraged to do thing"). AoS exists more on the allow/encourage spectrum while WMH is more like "I could physically do this thing, but I'd be breaking the rules, making the game unplayable and unfun, and I'd be completely unable to find an opponent willing to play me - screw it, I'll just play Steamroller... again."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: You can do dogfight too, there just aren't many flying units. Balance is no better or worse than a dogfight in AoS.
According to BattleCollege, Cryx has 4 flying units (2 warcasters, 2 jacks), Retribution has one (the offenseless caster), Circle has 5 (1 caster, 4 beasts), Skorne has 1 (beast), Cyriss has 2 (1 caster, 1 unit), and Legion has EIGHTEEN flying units (mix of casters, beasts, and units). So that's six factions without any flying units at all and one faction with a decent mix of flying units.
In AoS, if two units are unbalanced, you can add additional models to the unit (or remove them). Heck, you can add additional units. You can have a Stormcast army built from Prosecutors, knights, and the Celestant-Prime versus a Death army with Morghasts/spirit hosts and Nagash versus a Chaos army with Archaon, Valkia, plague drones, bloodthirsters, and so on - and you could find a combination of models that created an exciting, balanced game. No rules broken.
WMH has field allowances and the points only apply to a specific number of models (in the rare, rare case that you have a flying unit with more than one model). On the off chance that you could find enough models to make a dogfight worthwhile, you couldn't balance the game - likely at all, but certainly not without fundamentally breaking the rules of WMH.
Sqorgar wrote: 1. Create a Unique Force Not Possible Before - In Warmachine, the factions don't work together, and because of the combo heavy nature of the game, creating suboptimal forces is a great way to have a very unfun gaming experience. Warmachine is a game built around a handful of builds - so much so that tournaments are won based on anticipating which builds you will end up facing.
Slapping a bunch of models together and going up against a well thought out list is a good way to get pasted in competitive warmahordes. I'll give you that you can't bring to the table a list with Striker leading a team of trenchers and winter guard through the Thornwood, controlling both a Cygnarian and Khadoran jack as he leads a team against Cryx. But personally that's a sacrifice I am willing to make if it also stops people bringing sigmarines fighting alongside chaos... freedom to bring uniquely fluffy lists is also fredom to throw fluff out the window.
Sqorgar wrote: 2. Play Hero Deathmatch - In Warmachine, the casters are extremely unbalanced against each other individually, and if you played casters only, there's a great chance that Butcher or Feora will decimate the other casters before they get a chance to do anything. Retribution even has a caster with zero offensive capabilities.
A goblin wizard vs a bloodthirster hero deathmatch is even more unbalanced than Butcher vs Issyria. Either way if you are playing it people are going to come into the game knowing that is what it is, knowing it won't be a super serious competitive event, and will have to adjust what they bring for the format. I don't see the difference here.
Sqorgar wrote: 4. Have a Massive Dogfight - Warmachine doesn't really have many flying units, and the game doesn't work without casters (of which, I can only think of two flying casters, both Cryx)
If you want to have a fliers only game of AoS you are going to need to set that up beforehand, collaborate with your opponent, and bring a very limited selection of models. Again if you do those same pre game steps with a Warmachine opponent I don't see what the difference is, unless you are looking at the example as specifically flying things and not "a whole game of only X". If you're saying Warmahordes lacks flying units then yes, it probably doesn't have nearly as many as AoS but that doesn't strike me as a particularly meaningful point in anyone's favor.
Sqorgar wrote: 5. Collect Lots of Small Forces Rather Than One Big One - Because of the standard point size games, you'll have a minimum of a 25 pt army for each faction, since you can't combine stuff. Even then, most players prefer 50 pts, so you'll probably need a minimum of 50 pts too. It is very, very hard in Warmachine to dabble in multiple factions without committing to a large army. I say this as someone with 5 different WM armies (Cryx, Retribution, Menoth, Khador, Convergence).
Funny thing, I was discussing this with my roommate today. He is a painter who is only particicpating in his first journeyman ever now, but he has a well painted army each for Cryx, Cygnar, Legion, Trolls and Retribution, all well over 25 points. They don't seem much bigger than regular AoS armies and he's found it very easy to collect lots of small forces. I myself have dabbled in a lot but tried to focus on my favourite faction. Point is a 35 point army is all you need, and it is not really any different from a AoS force from what I have seen.
Sqorgar wrote: 7. Create a New Warscroll - Due to the precarious balance Warmachine enjoys, creating a new unit that doesn't horribly break the game is rather difficult. AoS is a simple game without innate balance, so it is easier to balance around the created unit rather than balancing the unit within the game's very specific framework.
I'll absolutely give you that. You can't make up new units in Warmahordes and expect to take them to a pick up game. I prefer a balanced game though, so that's just going to be personal preference.
Sqorgar wrote: 9. Play Through the Official Campaign Storyline - I think the last campaign that Warmachine had was in the MK1 Colossals book. Everybody just plays Steamroller.
The last No Quarter had a 3 game campaign set up similar to a Journeyman with smaller armies for two players. It was simplified a little by keeping more complex unit mechanics out of it (I think cavalry wasn't allowed, nor was field artillery), it was very narrative focused too with the results of the last battle effecting the next. Last years seasonal play didn't quite have the narrative focus, but each faction had a solo or three that gained experience and were able to buy new abilities as they leveled up. I'd enjoy seeing both those things in AoS, but I haven't seen battleplans that take the results from one battle and use them to modify the next, nor a real leveling system.
Sqorgar wrote: I'm less familiar with Infinity, though I think it does work well with the stated list.
Couple of things about infinity off the top of my head since that's basically all I've been painting recently 1) Lists are generally restricted to factions, but I love that some subfactions will bring in models from other factions as they work together in the fluff (Pan O work closely with Aleph, so two of their sectorials have access to Aleph units)
2) A hero deathmatch would be SO FUN in infinity, and the way the system works it is lethal as hell so anyone can kill anyone, plus it's well balanced so I think if you just said '1 hero up to X points' it would be the best of all three games mentioned for it.
3) Floor tiles for space stations is something I have always wanted to do, especially over an X wing starmap and with airlocks for units with the ability to cross zero gravity terrain to use to spacewalk from one hall to the next and get behind people.
4) They don't have pliers, but a tank (TAG) fight would also be fun as hell.
5) I literally bought a whole army on a whim. Twice. Infinity is the BEST game for collecting lots of small forces. You buy a 5 model starter box because you want to paint three of the models in it. Then you buy a 4 man box because ooooh it's new and shiney and you want to pain them. Then you see two cool single model blisters because hey, what the hell you've been hacing fun collecting these guys. Bam, that's an army.
6) Not really a game that needs a game master, that's what the RPG is for (so hyped for that)
7) Not really a game for making your own model rules, but they do have spec ops models which in non campaign play you take the default amount of XP and use it to guy gear and abilities as needed from the most basic, stock standard generic profile ever, essentially building what you want. I'm sure that could be expanded to a casual game where you take 4 spec ops and use them as your own fluffed up specialists.
8) It is a much more detailed setting than AoS, not a place to put your own empires in, but if that's a good thing or bad is totally subjective.
9) Campaign Paradiso, the entier book dedicated to playing through a narrative campaign 10) Create your own campaign, no more or less doable than AoS or Warmahores I guess, just requires a group willing to do it.
Personally I prefer Blue Max if I want to play a flying game. It's got a tight set of rules that is simple to learn and quick to play, but hard to master, no points, character progression and narrative.
So, if I understand correctly, you actually can do it all, but only with varying degrees of success.
If, by varying degrees of success, you include "a complete failure", then yes. There's a huge difference between "I can physically do thing" and "I'm allowed to do thing" (or even "I'm encouraged to do thing"). AoS exists more on the allow/encourage spectrum while WMH is more like "I could physically do this thing, but I'd be breaking the rules, making the game unplayable and unfun, and I'd be completely unable to find an opponent willing to play me - screw it, I'll just play Steamroller... again."
Agreed; you're more likely to be able to do these things in AoS because the player base is more agreeable to homebrewing than Warmachine, which is good as it is out of the box.
Mechanically, there's no difference.
AoS is no more empowering of homebrew than Warmachine, except for the fact some homebrewing is required to get going with AoS; thus the gamer is forced into that mindset.
Plus, some of those ideas are that innovative even in AoS; Hey, lets just play with heroes/flyers. I mean, even White Dwarf had a page of dogfighting rules for 40K when flyers appeared. You're not going to get the same gaming experience as playing a game designed around that sort of thing.
Herzlos wrote: You can do dogfight too, there just aren't many flying units. Balance is no better or worse than a dogfight in AoS.
According to BattleCollege, Cryx has 4 flying units (2 warcasters, 2 jacks), Retribution has one (the offenseless caster), Circle has 5 (1 caster, 4 beasts), Skorne has 1 (beast), Cyriss has 2 (1 caster, 1 unit), and Legion has EIGHTEEN flying units (mix of casters, beasts, and units). So that's six factions without any flying units at all and one faction with a decent mix of flying units.
In AoS, if two units are unbalanced, you can add additional models to the unit (or remove them). Heck, you can add additional units. You can have a Stormcast army built from Prosecutors, knights, and the Celestant-Prime versus a Death army with Morghasts/spirit hosts and Nagash versus a Chaos army with Archaon, Valkia, plague drones, bloodthirsters, and so on - and you could find a combination of models that created an exciting, balanced game. No rules broken.
WMH has field allowances and the points only apply to a specific number of models (in the rare, rare case that you have a flying unit with more than one model). On the off chance that you could find enough models to make a dogfight worthwhile, you couldn't balance the game - likely at all, but certainly not without fundamentally breaking the rules of WMH.
But if you're playing the mini-game in WMH, you can easily just change the numbers to re-balance too. You're not playing it by the rules by that point anyway.
I am guessing it makes no difference to anyone that I was not comparing AoS to other games, I was just highlighting some things that might be fun to do...
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ok sorry that all probably was totally off topic. Some things I enjoy about AoS if you're interested would be:
1) Free rules.
Thank god, it'a about time and a HUGE step forward for GW.
2) Great new khorn models.
Some of them are amazing.
3) New bases.
Another good move I think. I like my ranked fantasy but AoS clearly isn't that, and since it isn't larger round bases and oval cavalry bases are a great idea.
MongooseMatt wrote: I am guessing it makes no difference to anyone that I was not comparing AoS to other games, I was just highlighting some things that might be fun to do...
You highlighted things to do in AoS, rather things to do. That immediately created the possible impression that these things you listed are special to AoS. That might be a false attribution (to borrow a concept from cognitive psychology) but it is easily understandable.
We then got the attack and defence quad coming in, and the thread turned into the usual backbiting.
Kilkrazy wrote: That immediately created the possible impression that these things you listed are special to AoS. That might be a false attribution (to borrow a concept from cognitive psychology) but it is easily understandable.
So, if I understand correctly, you actually can do it all, but only with varying degrees of success.
If, by varying degrees of success, you include "a complete failure", then yes. There's a huge difference between "I can physically do thing" and "I'm allowed to do thing" (or even "I'm encouraged to do thing"). AoS exists more on the allow/encourage spectrum while WMH is more like "I could physically do this thing, but I'd be breaking the rules, making the game unplayable and unfun, and I'd be completely unable to find an opponent willing to play me - screw it, I'll just play Steamroller... again.".
You hit the nail in the head with the "Encouraged" bit - one can assume that, provided you find a willing partner (Gosh that just sounds lewd), you can do anything on that list, regardless of the game, and have a blast at it (there must be flyers and heroes for the required entries, of course). It's just more likely that you will have an utter failure because in the end it's just less likely that you will find a willing partner for such a venture on the playerbase of a game like Warmachine. It's not the game system itself that bars it as you can simply remove the restrictions - it's how the majority of the community enjoys playing it.
I am pretty sure, however, you won't be able to find a player willing to play Hero Deathmatch or Dogfight by means of a club/store Pick up game, just like that. It's something that needs to be agreed to beforehand, which kinda makes those unplayable as pick ups.
AoS actively encourages such unruly gaming by saying to people: "Welp, anything goes! Go on, slap some Nurgle friends to that Tzeentch warband you got there. You know you want it, it's only 99.95$. Nobody will care!"
And, chances are, nobody will.
You don't even need a game at all to do any of these things, just make it all up and use bottle caps. Or even just imagine it completely. This could go on forever...
AoS graciously also lets you never have to play the game to post every day on a forum about the game about why it doesn't work.
MongooseMatt wrote: I am guessing it makes no difference to anyone that I was not comparing AoS to other games, I was just highlighting some things that might be fun to do...
I'm sorry you're getting a lot of flak here and it must hurt your enthusiasm (even if it wasn't your blog?), but the blog really reads like a paid for article about "10 reasons to buy AoS". It did a lot better than the White Dwarf: Daily version did though.
There are some good things about AoS (i'll have a go at listing them later), but it feels disingenuous to claim generic things are a good thing about AoS. If that makes sense?
For better or worse, Dakka at large is mostly a 40k board. It's the lens through which most Dakka posters will evaluate AoS. And considering that AoS undermines fundamental pillars of the 40k-centric "worldview" of miniatures gaming, we aren't talking about rose-colored glasses.
coldgaming wrote: AoS graciously also lets you never have to play the game to post every day on a forum about the game about why it doesn't work.
Kilkrazy wrote: That immediately created the possible impression that these things you listed are special to AoS. That might be a false attribution (to borrow a concept from cognitive psychology) but it is easily understandable.
On an AoS-specific board?
Seriously?
It's the fact that it is an AoS-specific board that makes the title "blah blah blah for AoS" unnecessary and therefore open to interpretation as a two fingers up to everything that isn't AoS.
You only need to read the results to see that this is true.
coldgaming wrote: You don't even need a game at all to do any of these things, just make it all up and use bottle caps. Or even just imagine it completely. This could go on forever...
AoS graciously also lets you never have to play the game to post every day on a forum about the game about why it doesn't work.
Or even more graciously move 100+ models one after another, all precisely measured for tactical advantage.
Which incidentally, is *also* something that isn't unique to AoS.
Let's just accept Matt's at fault because he didn't title the thread "Ten Cool Things to do in the Age of Sigmar that I completely understand are not unique to the system and might even work better in other game systems but as I like Age of Sigmar that makes me an idiot child so I need others to spell out to me how to have fun properly, and I'm terribly sorry for making you read this."
Yeah... I gotta say I did get the implication that it was 'fun things to do in AoS that make AoS different from other games', thus opening it up to the comparisons to other games because the alternative would really feel like clickbait/blatant advertisement.
coldgaming wrote: You don't even need a game at all to do any of these things, just make it all up and use bottle caps. Or even just imagine it completely. This could go on forever...
AoS graciously also lets you never have to play the game to post every day on a forum about the game about why it doesn't work.
This is what drives me crazy about these posts. Its fine that people like AOS but it really bothers me when the reasons why are things such as
1. Play without points
2. field whatever you want
3. make up your own rules
and so on. You can do this with any game. I could play WHFB, 9th age, KOW, Warmachine, Frostgrave or anything and ignore army composition and points. I can make my own scenarios and ignore rules i don't like. But the reason why i pay someone for their rules and models is because i want a game that i can meet up with a random opponent and all we have to agree on is a point value. I don't want to have a philosophical discussion about what i feel is balanced or what comp pack we should use and what we should do incase one of us begins to win. I play house ruled stuff all the time with my gaming group but when i show up to a store and some random want to mix it up with a game of 9th or WHFB we don't have to spend half an hour discussing what we feel is fare. AOS gives a terrible platform for people to play with when not inside their specific groups and this is a huge let down for a large portion of the community.
jonolikespie wrote: Yeah... I gotta say I did get the implication that it was 'fun things to do in AoS that make AoS different from other games', thus opening it up to the comparisons to other games because the alternative would really feel like clickbait/blatant advertisement.
On.
The.
AoS.
Board. I'm beginning to think that rather than spend my time in the AoS section, I should head over to (say) the WMH section so anytime anyone says anything positive I can explain that WMH is actually a netlisting powergamer cesspool. Because as far as I can figure, negativity is a massively entertaining pastime.
We've been through this point before a number of times, including earlier in this very thread.
People put stuff on boards for people to read. You can't blame people for reading the stuff and maybe not agreeing with it or not liking it and then making comments in response.
Presumably people come to read boards, rather than blogs where the comments are controlled by the author and perhaps only one point of view is presented, because they can read a broad variety of opinion.
jonolikespie wrote: Yeah... I gotta say I did get the implication that it was 'fun things to do in AoS that make AoS different from other games', thus opening it up to the comparisons to other games because the alternative would really feel like clickbait/blatant advertisement.
On.
The.
AoS.
Board. I'm beginning to think that rather than spend my time in the AoS section, I should head over to (say) the WMH section so anytime anyone says anything positive I can explain that WMH is actually a netlisting powergamer cesspool. Because as far as I can figure, negativity is a massively entertaining pastime.
It's an easy mistake to make. I even thought that was the OP's intent. Additionally, this is a discussion forum. If you want to voice your criticisms of WMH you are free to do so.
I am guessing it makes no difference to anyone that I was not comparing AoS to other games, I was just highlighting some things that might be fun to do...
Wont make a jot of a difference Im afraid.
I really enjoyed the post and some cool ideas, like the monster mash and underground ones.
To those of you that dont like Matts post and ideas, why even bother to post?
Its a post about some cool things you can do in AoS, in an AoS thread, in an AoS subforum for fun.
You dont like AoS? thats cool, kudos. But leave the negativity, rebuttals and counter points at the door. We've seen them ad nauseum and there is no need to drag another positive AoS thread into the tedious quagmire again.
To those championing "its healthy forum debate" pull the other one, we know exactly what it is.
jonolikespie wrote: Yeah... I gotta say I did get the implication that it was 'fun things to do in AoS that make AoS different from other games', thus opening it up to the comparisons to other games because the alternative would really feel like clickbait/blatant advertisement.
On.
The.
AoS.
Board. I'm beginning to think that rather than spend my time in the AoS section, I should head over to (say) the WMH section so anytime anyone says anything positive I can explain that WMH is actually a netlisting powergamer cesspool. Because as far as I can figure, negativity is a massively entertaining pastime.
Go ahead. It's a discussion board. People there will either agree with you or tell you why you are wrong. If you don't like reading people's opinions on a topic I suggest you try either the ignore button or not participating in online discussions.
Perhaps a better approach would be to highlight 10 fun things you can do in skirmish games and how to do them in AoS.
If they are the same in other games, it's probably not worth mentioning them, but if they require a different approach in AoS (due to different rule mechanisms) then it's helpful to players to see how it can be done differently.
For example, I am shooting at random here, does AoS have height levels and how would this affect dogfights between flying units?
No, that's great. Y'see I thought it was all about discussing stuff from the baseline of having at least a passing interest in the subject matter.
Knowing that I'm free to go and be a thundering bellend in other sections of the forum I have no interest in for no other reason than the love of pissing on parades is ace, and Dakka really should include that in the brochure, because it's not obvious when you sign up.
I know I don't *have* to do it, but how am I going to score my internet points if I just stay discussing the stuff I'm interested in?
Go ahead. It's a discussion board. People there will either agree with you or tell you why you are wrong. If you don't like reading people's opinions on a topic I suggest you try either the ignore button or not participating in online discussions.
I politely suggest if you dont like the idea of an original post, which has clear demarkation points and boundaries around a games system, you dont post in the thread at all.
And most certainly not to pick apart point by point the ideas becauses you are in direct oppostion to said game system.
See works both ways dosent it?
Y'see I thought it was all about discussing stuff from the baseline of having at least a passing interest in the subject matter.
When "passing interest" is broadly defined as "Pfff AoS sucks", a "discussion" is only going to go so far. I.e. another smorgesboard of moaning and negativity.
Its tedious, unproductive and frankly infuriating.
jonolikespie wrote: Yeah... I gotta say I did get the implication that it was 'fun things to do in AoS that make AoS different from other games', thus opening it up to the comparisons to other games because the alternative would really feel like clickbait/blatant advertisement.
On.
The.
AoS.
Board. I'm beginning to think that rather than spend my time in the AoS section, I should head over to (say) the WMH section so anytime anyone says anything positive I can explain that WMH is actually a netlisting powergamer cesspool. Because as far as I can figure, negativity is a massively entertaining pastime.
You should have seen this response based on how you se up your list
"1. Create a Unique Force Not Possible Before "
This clearly is a comparison to WHFB and many people liked that armies had to fit the fluff AKA (couldn't have lizardmen fighting along side chaos).
2. "Power gaming is, of course, meaningless in most Age of Sigmar battles, so that is the first barrier to go."
Another stab at people that enjoy balanced games then your stunned they give their opinion in a discussion thread.
3. "This is one I am very guilty of. While playing Fantasy Battle, I managed to accrue around 8,000 points of High Elves and in Warhammer 40,000 I was giving the entire chapter of Dark Angels a serious go.
However, you can approach things differently in Age of Sigmar. There is no requirement to build blocks of 40, 50 or 60 core troops before getting to the good stuff. Instead, just have 10 or 20 ‘core’ troops, add whatever you like in terms of Heroes and special units – and then move on to another force! "
Another comparison to WHFB right in your text so this clearly isn't just a post about AOS when you keep comparing it to WHFB 4. "Above all, remember the Mortal Realms are truly fantastic and mythical, so there is no need to limit yourself to a fantasy version of medieval Europe. We have already seen lakes of boiling blood, floating islands, gravity-and-time warping mini-worlds… This is an area where you can really unleash your imagination. "
Once again implying that the Fantasy version of fluff is inferior to the AOS high fantasy.
It should be clear why some people didn't take your list as just "why i like AOS" when it comes off more of "i like AOS and these are the reasons why other games cant do any of these things"
Go ahead. It's a discussion board. People there will either agree with you or tell you why you are wrong. If you don't like reading people's opinions on a topic I suggest you try either the ignore button or not participating in online discussions.
I politely suggest if you dont like the idea of an original post, which has clear demarkation points and boundaries around a games system, you dont post in the thread at all.
And most certainly not to pick apart point by point the ideas becauses you are in direct oppostion to said game system.
See works both ways dosent it?
That's not how a discussion board works. People can voice their opinion on a topic whether it is positive or negative. If you feel a post is off topic then alert the mods.
It should be clear why some people didn't take your list as just "why i like AOS" when it comes off more of "i like AOS and these are the reasons why other games cant do any of these things"
I'd suggest thats your negative coloration of the topic since you've referenced WHFB 4 times in your post.
This has nothing to do with WHFB despite you needing it to.
Its about AoS.
It should be clear why some people didn't take your list as just "why i like AOS" when it comes off more of "i like AOS and these are the reasons why other games cant do any of these things"
I'd suggest thats your negative coloration of the topic since you've referenced WHFB 4 times in your post.
This has nothing to do with WHFB despite you needing it to.
Its about AoS.
I quoted times he referred to it in his original post....... It had several pointed points aimed at WHFB. I quoted them for you if you want to go back and read my post.
For those who figured the thread was about what makes AoS special, it's hard to blame you. The list begins like this, after all:
MongooseMatt wrote: In days gone by, you were locked into a single army list, [...]
So it's clearly an explanation of how you can do something in AoS that you could not do in WHFB. I guess that is less true of the other suggestions. I mean, to the extent that GW doesn't have a squad of goons who come to your house to force you to play with your toys exactly as their books dictate, you could do anything you wanted and claim you were playing WHFB. I think Matt's point is, the stuff he suggests would not really be welcome in a pick up game context, which context AoS pretty well ditches. So, put it another way, just because AoS is not tailor built for pick up game play doesn't mean it is incomplete or terrible; there are other ways to play miniatures games. For those not born and bred to GW, like Kilkrazy for example, this will be pretty obvious. For those who have grown up with the GW-centric experience, this could be a genuinely new set of concepts.
I quoted times he referred to it in his original post....... It had several pointed points aimed at WHFB. I quoted them for you if you want to go back and read my post.
coldgaming wrote: AoS graciously also lets you never have to play the game to post every day on a forum about the game about why it doesn't work.
This insightful quote (exalted btw) easily explains, well, literally, everything!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: It's the fact that it is an AoS-specific board that makes the title "blah blah blah for AoS" unnecessary and therefore open to interpretation as a two fingers up to everything that isn't AoS.
You only need to read the results to see that this is true.
Haha, hahaha. This is excellent. Blaming the victim is always correct - Matt deserved to get trounced because he antagonized a bunch of whiny babies! (not naming names, I'm sure there's NO whiny babies on this thread whose sole purpose in life is to complain about Age of Sigmar)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
To those of you that dont like Matts post and ideas, why even bother to post?
Its a post about some cool things you can do in AoS, in an AoS thread, in an AoS subforum for fun.
Welcome to the internet. You'll notice that 90% of the posts in this thread are spewed garbage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: to the extent that GW doesn't have a squad of goons who come to your house to force you to play with your toys exactly as their books dictate
No, but several posters feel the need to tell you that the game you play is terrible and who believe it's their duty to inform you of such at every possible opportunity.
That's not how a discussion board works. People can voice their opinion on a topic whether it is positive or negative. If you feel a post is off topic then alert the mods.
Thats not in debate.
All Im suggesting is that those who have either a mild dislike or outright hatred of AoS and its associated topics ease off the gas a bit.
Because do you know what the ultimate outcome will be?
Those that do try to post positive/interesting/engaging/fun topics will simply give up.
And the forum will be a much less interesting place.
There'll be no winner or loser here. It simply mean that the AoS subforum becomes a desert and that helps no one. Whether you agree with Matts views, hes a regular and intesting contributor here, with batreps, book reviews, modelling ideas.
When he and others give up because almost every thread degenerates into a whine/bitching fest do you think the forum will be better or worse off?
Sqorgar wrote: Dakka was making such progress with the unrequited AoS hate... and then Warseer went down...
You think GW has anything but contempt for it's playerbase?
@Ratius
Fair enough I suppose. But wouldn't it behoove the AoS guys to ignore the "haters"? It's not like their minds can be changed about the game.
And for the record I don't hate Matt or AoS. I think the guy is very passionate about his game and that is admirable. AoS seems like a fun game to kill an evening with a buddy but I'd never play in a tourney without some sort of comp system.
Fair enough I suppose. But wouldn't it behoove the AoS guys to ignore the "haters"? It's not like their minds can be changed about the game.
Yes we could ignore the "haters", thats fair enough.
It just gets very difficult and fairly tedious when several ongoing/new threads have a negative connotation or input.
Anyway, its been an interesting read, I think I've said my piece
Ratius wrote: Whether you agree with Matts views, hes a regular and intesting contributor here, with batreps, book reviews, modelling ideas.
I totally agree; can't stand Age of Sigmar personally, but Matt seems like the sort of person I'd be happy to play a game with and I always look forward to his pictures! Don't think you'll really get much dissent on that, honestly. I can't remember anyone making a post that could be considered critical or antagonistic in any of those topics. Really, this one's only drawing flak because it reads a bit like that one article GW put out about 'why we like Age of Sigmar' - albeit much more well-thought-out and not hawking gold paint. There's a lot of 'you couldn't do this before', when you clearly could have - and, in many people's cases, did.
I've created multiple corners of the Border Princes (I know Renegade Crowns was for roleplaying rather than wargaming, but AoS badly, BADLY needs a book in that style right after getting a General's Compendium), Warband rules were great for collecting small forces, and I used to love playing Arena of Death hero deathmatches over forums...honestly, I think they were a lot more interesting with the level of customization WHFB had. I'd see people kit up giant killing machines with armor and ward saves falling out the unmentionables...and I'd quietly shuffle in a goblin warboss with the Amulet of Protectyness. Much fun was had.
Sqorgar wrote: Dakka was making such progress with the unrequited AoS hate... and then Warseer went down...
To be fair, those posting in this thread have been on Dakka for a long time. So I don't think Warseer going down is the issue...unless Dakka users secretly vent all their frustration/hate about AoS onto Warseer to keep Dakka Dakka from being Whine Dakka . I am not familiar with Mongoose Matt's posting record on Dakka Dakka, but it seems people are reading way too much (or adding more to it) than what is actually stated in the OP.
The only "cool thing" about AoS for me is that there is a great freedom to field whatever you want. Yes, you could do that with other game systems by ignoring rules of those games. Majority of those game systems have rules that specifically states the intention of the game is to play with defined restrictions to the type of force that you can field. For better or worse (and it seems the worse for many users), it seems the philosophy or intentions of the Age of Sigmar system is to provide a bare bones framework for the players to play games of their "own devising."
All Im suggesting is that those who have either a mild dislike or outright hatred of AoS and its associated topics ease off the gas a bit. Because do you know what the ultimate outcome will be? Those that do try to post positive/interesting/engaging/fun topics will simply give up.
And the forum will be a much less interesting place. There'll be no winner or loser here. It simply mean that the AoS subforum becomes a desert and that helps no one. Whether you agree with Matts views, hes a regular and intesting contributor here, with batreps, book reviews, modelling ideas. When he and others give up because almost every thread degenerates into a whine/bitching fest do you think the forum will be better or worse off?
What comes out depends on what goes in. Matt's batreps, reviews and scenario idea threads are all great and thus bring out decent discussion.
A post that's a copy of a blog with a click-bait title that acknowledges it's click-bait sounding, and then goes on to be a pretty generic post that sounds a lot like that GW "Why AoS is Cool" shill piece that was universally derided when it came out isn't going to be as well received.
Honestly, I think this thread would have received a much warmer welcome if it had been posted in the General subforum and focused on a broader approach, something like:
"You know, playing Age of Sigmar has really revitalized my hobby and given me a refreshed perspective on looking outside the confines of a ruleset to do some unique things in game. So here's a list of some AoS inspired ideas that I think others should try in their games:
1. Break force limitations to find new, interesting combinations 2. Play a game with only the heroes/important individuals your ruleset uses 3. Use different table shapes, or even try playing in confined areas if your rules allow for it 4. Have a battle that focuses on certain types of models available in the game - an all flyer game, for instance. Or all cavalry, or all monsters 5. Trade armies with your friends, and try playing difference forces 6. Become a game master 7. Get together with your community and map out your own in-game world/places (important for #10) 8. Make up your own units 9. Play through official campaigns and then 10. Create your own campaign"
To be fair, those posting in this thread have been on Dakka for a long time. So I don't think Warseer going down is the issue...unless Dakka users secretly vent all their frustration/hate about AoS onto Warseer to keep Dakka Dakka from being Whine Dakka .
I'm seeing a lot of unfamiliar names here (as well as a couple known posters I haven't seen for a while). Probably has nothing to do with Warseer, but I think this thread would've looked a lot different a month ago.
I am not familiar with Mongoose Matt's posting record on Dakka Dakka, but it seems people are reading way too much (or adding more to it) than what is actually stated in the OP.
Perhaps the problem, because MongooseMatt's contributions to this forum are without equal. He's the kind of community leader that makes forums a better place for everybody, and his posts here have been a boon not just to AoS, but to the entire hobby. He's also an unapologetic fan of Age of Sigmar. His gleeful enthusiasm (and absurd painting output) is well known... and infectious.
The oonly "cool thing" about AoS for me is that there is a great freedom to field whatever you want. Yes, you could do that with other game systems by ignoring rules of those games. Majority of those game systems have rules that specifically states the intention of the game is to play with defined restrictions to the type of force that you can field. For better or worse (and it seems the worst for many users), it seems the philosophy or intentions of the Age of Sigmar system is to provide a bare bones framework for the players to play games of their "own devising."
If you think of game design as an onion, designs occur in layers. In the very center of the layer is the basic engine of play, upon which things like factions, model rules, special abilities, terrain rules, point systems, and so on are built. AoS is content with giving only the first few layers to players and letting them decide how large the onion will be, and what it will look like, for themselves. Other game systems give you the whole onion and expect you to prune away the bits you don't like. In both cases, I guess you can design the onion you want to, but it is by no means the same process.
Sqorgar wrote: If you think of game design as an onion, designs occur in layers. In the very center of the layer is the basic engine of play, upon which things like factions, model rules, special abilities, terrain rules, point systems, and so on are built. AoS is content with giving only the first few layers to players and letting them decide how large the onion will be, and what it will look like, for themselves. Other game systems give you the whole onion and expect you to prune away the bits you don't like. In both cases, I guess you can design the onion you want to, but it is by no means the same process.
If I'm paying the price for a bag of onions, though, I don't expect to get a packet of seeds. Especially when the onion salesman just lit a firecracker in my steak and onion dinner.
Sqorgar wrote: If you think of game design as an onion, designs occur in layers. In the very center of the layer is the basic engine of play, upon which things like factions, model rules, special abilities, terrain rules, point systems, and so on are built. AoS is content with giving only the first few layers to players and letting them decide how large the onion will be, and what it will look like, for themselves. Other game systems give you the whole onion and expect you to prune away the bits you don't like. In both cases, I guess you can design the onion you want to, but it is by no means the same process.
If I'm paying the price for a bag of onions, though, I don't expect to get a packet of seeds. Especially when the onion salesman just lit a firecracker in my steak and onion dinner.
Luckily you are not paying the price of a bag of onions for a packet of seeds. Unless for some reason you actually paid money for the free AOS rules
Sqorgar wrote: If you think of game design as an onion, designs occur in layers. In the very center of the layer is the basic engine of play, upon which things like factions, model rules, special abilities, terrain rules, point systems, and so on are built. AoS is content with giving only the first few layers to players and letting them decide how large the onion will be, and what it will look like, for themselves. Other game systems give you the whole onion and expect you to prune away the bits you don't like. In both cases, I guess you can design the onion you want to, but it is by no means the same process.
If I'm paying the price for a bag of onions, though, I don't expect to get a packet of seeds. Especially when the onion salesman just lit a firecracker in my steak and onion dinner.
Luckily you are not paying the price of a bag of onions for a packet of seeds. Unless for some reason you actually paid money for the free AOS rules
That was probably badly phrased, but I meant it more at the game as a whole. The rules, such as they are, are free - except for the scenarios, the formations, the setting rules...along with the soaring cost of the models, the setting itself being locked behind expensive hardcover books, and so on and so forth.
Hm. Probably should have just gone with the Shrek reference, in retrospect.
As a "hater", I can tell you that it's not about enthusiasm. The opening post here wasn't "I have so much fun this is great never had so much fun because this or that", I'd feel bad belittling something like that and never seen someone do around.
Mr. Moongoose though tends to post in a way that warrants discussion, either a lot of questionable statements, AoS is balanced, rules are genius etc or like here, posted things you can do with most games like those were unique to AoS. I could give him benefit of the doubt ofc that it's just a cool light hearted fun post but I chose not to, it's not the first time and it sometimes borders on trolling. As a troll myself I can tell and you can troll with positivity you know.
As for salt and hate, I for example only came back for a while because of the axing of TK and will be gone soon, don't worry guys. Not sure about the rest of the foaming at the mouth detractors and fun killerz though.
If I'm paying the price for a bag of onions, though, I don't expect to get a packet of seeds. Especially when the onion salesman just lit a firecracker in my steak and onion dinner.
coldgaming wrote: You don't even need a game at all to do any of these things, just make it all up and use bottle caps. Or even just imagine it completely. This could go on forever...
AoS graciously also lets you never have to play the game to post every day on a forum about the game about why it doesn't work.
Or even more graciously move 100+ models one after another, all precisely measured for tactical advantage.
Which incidentally, is *also* something that isn't unique to AoS.
Let's just accept Matt's at fault because he didn't title the thread "Ten Cool Things to do in the Age of Sigmar that I completely understand are not unique to the system and might even work better in other game systems but as I like Age of Sigmar that makes me an idiot child so I need others to spell out to me how to have fun properly, and I'm terribly sorry for making you read this."
Haha, I would LOVE to play mordheim. Too bad my local is a GW... I would try and play it a home but I've already got a full Necromunda set up for that which scratches a no doubt similar itch! :-)
Kilkrazy wrote: That immediately created the possible impression that these things you listed are special to AoS. That might be a false attribution (to borrow a concept from cognitive psychology) but it is easily understandable.
On an AoS-specific board?
Seriously?
It may surprise you that recently posted in threads show up in the recent threads list, regardless of what section they are posted in.
I saw the title, was interested in seeing some opinions about good things in AoS, and got a list of fairly generic points that can be made about pretty much any wargame and stated as much.
I don't play AoS, mostly because I have zero interest in sinking any money into GW, and there are no players who play it in my gaming club. I play KoW for my mass fantasy battles, 40k as my main sci-fi mass battle game, and a wide range of table and board based skirmish type games; I'm always interested in trying out and reading about new things. I was hoping to hear about some unique selling points about AoS... but didn't really see any.
WMH has field allowances and the points only apply to a specific number of models....
Erm... so ignore them, much like AoS does?
Any game style that can be applied to AoS, can be applied to all the other games out there. AoS is not the special little snowflake you like to make it out to be.
If I'm paying the price for a bag of onions, though, I don't expect to get a packet of seeds. Especially when the onion salesman just lit a firecracker in my steak and onion dinner.
I know, metaphors are hard. But if you take your time, and think real hard, I'm sure that one day, eventually, you'll make sense.
OT, these are some cool ideas and could be fun, even if AoS is a let down. I think these would make for some fun messing around missions with some friends.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lou_Cypher wrote: So basically, if something nice can be said about Age of Sigmar, it's not worth posting anything about because somewhere out there, it can also be done despite the fact other miniature war games are allowed to borrow concepts from each other without anyone batting an eye.
Well, feth you, dakka community. feth you posters who try to belittle everything about a game every time a positive topic about it appears.
Sorry, but this isn't new. Trust me, 40k is just as filled with it's decriers. There are literally tons of posts of something new coming out and people saying "Look, more 40k trash!"
WMH has field allowances and the points only apply to a specific number of models....
Erm... so ignore them, much like AoS does?
WMH has several units that are flat out broken if you are allowed to take multiples (which the tier lists use as their primary selling points). WMH doesn't limit bonus stacking (which AoS, in a roundabout way, does), which means if you can play six units that all yield the same bonus, you can get 6x the bonus. For instance, a Necrosurgeon can spawn a grunt for 3 soul tokens, but if you had 3 Necrosurgeons standing close to each other, they'd each get a soul token every time a grunt died - thus if three grunts died, you could respawn 3 grunts the next turn. And if you have more Necrosurgeons, like six of them within 5" of a Mechanithrall unit, they could spawn six grunts for ever three that they lose. The field allowance is the one balancing factor here, preventing Necrosurgeons from spamming the field with reanimated corpses every turn. And this is by no means the only example of this in the WMH rules. So you can't really ignore field allowances and points in WMH without fundamentally making the game broken.
AoS doesn't have many exponential abilities. Only one I can think of is the whole summoning things that summon things. Not being a combo-orientated game, AoS does not meet such a dire fate without FA or points putting limitations on things.
Any game style that can be applied to AoS, can be applied to all the other games out there. AoS is not the special little snowflake you like to make it out to be.
I never said AoS was a special snowflake. I just said that AoS can do things that Warmachine can not - at least by that I mean that AoS can do things while still being recognizably AoS, while doing the same things in WMH would require fundamentally changing it into a different game.
Nice thread with some cool ideas from the OP, thanks for that mate.
Ten cool things AoS is doing for me.
1. Warscrolls jazz.
- I hate Ipods, Ipads, Iphones on my wargamming, nothing beats pen and paper and Im a sucker for illustrations and graphics, so I have plans to do some fancy scrolls for my units and print them in nice old paper in a reduced card size. All tooled up to each individual army visual. So this alone will keep me having fun with AoS & Design/ illustrations.
2. All is there for freeeee
- Yup no need to pay for rules its all there so now I can just pick armies at random and start collecting them without the heavy investment on rules. Its easier to pick up factions now.
3. Size does not matter
- I can build an army/warband the size I want so a small warband is as viable as big one and unlike 1500pts minimum. No need for regiments with 50 models now.
4. Rank & file is gone
- Yeah no more constrains there so I can go wild on the poses and sizes of the minis which is refreshing.
5. Rebasing
- Funny on what in paper is a PITA but in the end turned out quite an enjoyable activity to rebase my old armies into round bases. They look more sexy now too and gave me the opportunity to make them more consistent.
6. Mix and match
- Alliances are quite flexible and this does open the door to many crazy home-brewed fantastic alliances.
7. Rule of cool
- A mix of point 3 and 6... how cool would be a pack of trolls roaming around or giants avalanche etc... thats really one of the best bits about AoS the flexible nature of the setting.
8. Your previous army got bigger!!!
- No joking with the formations thing now you can split your already big army into subfactions and to complete those subfactions you can potentially increase the size of your army... for example 3 strong units of black orcs is bigger than my previous regiment of 25 and they need more standarts and musicians etc. So my previous organization and models are having a boost and facelift.
9. Start collecting
- Wooooot! Deep discounts on new warbands box sets?! That is a huge change that GW introduced and makes me go back to planing new warbands alliances and get me started into a new army.
10. Freedoom
That is what basically AoS did to my wfb addiction it broke the rules and removed things that compromised my enjoyment. Now I can start, reshuffle, increase, reduce, convert my collections with little problems and cheaper.
YEES I can do some of these points on some other games (and I do)but thats not the point here.
What did this freedom bring of negative? Lots of things but that is not the point here either.
I can say that my final balance is positive for AoS.
WMH has several units that are flat out broken if you are allowed to take multiples (which the tier lists use as their primary selling points). WMH doesn't limit bonus stacking (which AoS, in a roundabout way, does), which means if you can play six units that all yield the same bonus, you can get 6x the bonus. For instance, a Necrosurgeon can spawn a grunt for 3 soul tokens, but if you had 3 Necrosurgeons standing close to each other, they'd each get a soul token every time a grunt died - thus if three grunts died, you could respawn 3 grunts the next turn. And if you have more Necrosurgeons, like six of them within 5" of a Mechanithrall unit, they could spawn six grunts for ever three that they lose. The field allowance is the one balancing factor here, preventing Necrosurgeons from spamming the field with reanimated corpses every turn. And this is by no means the only example of this in the WMH rules. So you can't really ignore field allowances and points in WMH without fundamentally making the game broken.
Eh, no. That's not how it works. Like, at all. What you say is not even remotely true.
(1) Nearest necrosurgeon gets the corpse token, not all three. The rules are quite clear. So that ends that whole made up scenario right there. Three grunts die generate three corpse tokens which can bring back one mcthrall, assuming they all go to the same necrosurgeon in the first place.
(2) spawned grunts must be added to a mcthrall unit in its command range. So kill the unit in question and nothing can be added to it. Those corpse tokens go to waste then, And to be fair, there are plenty mass infantry removing techniques available.
(3) kill the necrosurgeon itself. No spawning. It's not hard. Either take it out with blast damage, put a few sprays towards it (and those sprays are equally good at getting rid of those mcthrall hordes) or get it with axe to face. As a khador player, I can immediately think or mortars, victor, bombards, greylord ternion or murder ponies, winter guard infantry sprays, kayazy, (regular, and eliminators) and then there are specific counters like irusks air burst. No end of plays.
(4) indirect methods such as control abilities that prevent the mc thrills doing anything or reduce their effectiveness. Having loads of them means diddly when they can't move, charge, or attack for whatever reason, or if you can hold them in place with a tarpit while you go after the caster or grab scenario points in the other zone.
Far from 'broken', despite what you claim (and it's quite obvious you don't actually know how the game works or have thought about counters to it) and there are plenty ways of dealing with it. Spamming stuff is generally not always a smart move. It opens you up to hard counters and quite often, reduces your playbook and the 'answers' your army can provide.
If you are going to criticise warmachine for stuff, getting your facts right in the first place helps Enormously.
(1) Nearest necrosurgeon gets the corpse token, not all three. The rules are quite clear. So that ends that whole made up scenario right there. Three grunts die generate three corpse tokens which can bring back one mcthrall, assuming they all go to the same necrosurgeon in the first place.
I'll admit when I'm wrong. The rule for the Necrosurgeon just says that it gets a corpse token for models that die within 5". What we missed when we played it was the one paragraph rule on page 63 of the Prime rulebook (buried between the rules for Gunfighter and falling) which said that models only generate one of each type of token. It was an honest mistake, and not the only one we made. My opponent actually resurrected full Mechanithralls rather than the weaker Grunts, though we realized that error later.
I'm actually somewhat relieved that we were mistaken, truth be told - though weakening the resurrective capabilities of the units wouldn't have made the match up any more fun to play.
(2) spawned grunts must be added to a mcthrall unit in its command range. So kill the unit in question and nothing can be added to it. Those corpse tokens go to waste then, And to be fair, there are plenty mass infantry removing techniques available.
He used Terminous as his caster, giving all the Mechanithralls tough, and had roughly 30 of them on the table, swarming my models such that they could not use ranged attacks, move, or basically do anything at all.
If you are going to criticise warmachine for stuff, getting your facts right in the first place helps Enormously.
I admit my example was incorrect. I do stand by my statement that WMH uses field allowances and point systems to keep certain excessive combos under control, and ignoring them would open the game to combos that have no effective counter.
Well,,actually I guess I don't find it that unbelievable as you did use the word "cool" along with "AoS" in the title and everyone knows those don't go together,lol
With that,I have an 11th thing to add to the list
11) Enjoy a game of AoS then go on any online Miniatures games forum and post about your experience.Then grab some popcorn,sit back and watch the entertainment roll in about how you actually didn't enjoy the game,you are a simpleton and nothing but a GW fanboy for liking their game.
Seriously,,its just playing with toy soldiers...just like WMH,40k,Infinity,KoW and a host of other games...Its not worth all the angst some of you give it.
And yet people still keep posting and are still here. So there is something cool with AoS for people to be around.
coldgaming wrote: AoS graciously also lets you never have to play the game to post every day on a forum about the game about why it doesn't work.
This insightful quote (exalted btw) easily explains, well, literally, everything!
Except it doesn't. You don't need to play to know that given the disproportion in model strenght, a boost to the side with less models is an awful rule, for example.
judgedog wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote: It's the fact that it is an AoS-specific board that makes the title "blah blah blah for AoS" unnecessary and therefore open to interpretation as a two fingers up to everything that isn't AoS.
You only need to read the results to see that this is true.
Haha, hahaha. This is excellent. Blaming the victim is always correct - Matt deserved to get trounced because he antagonized a bunch of whiny babies! (not naming names, I'm sure there's NO whiny babies on this thread whose sole purpose in life is to complain about Age of Sigmar)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
To those of you that dont like Matts post and ideas, why even bother to post?
Its a post about some cool things you can do in AoS, in an AoS thread, in an AoS subforum for fun.
Welcome to the internet. You'll notice that 90% of the posts in this thread are spewed garbage.
Whiney babies spewing garbage, nice. I love the 'haters insult the game, supporters insult the haters' routine.
You see, I actualy insulted GW staff personaly once in all my conversations, calling them morons. Still regret that and have conscience fits heh and would never say that directly in conversation with them. "Your company is awful and your ruleset lazy", that's from me. "You're a whiney baby spewing garbage", that's from you. See the difference?
I skipped page 3 so I don't know if it's been said but:
Fun thing to do in AoS that could reasonably be extrapolated to other games if AoS isn't people's cup of tea and they enjoy other games where doing these is within the realms of possibility:
1- Make a gameboard with the realm gates halfway dividing the board into two separate realms. Use the two nominated realm rules for the respective board halves!
2- Paint a sigmarine in NMM yellow/gold with all cloth painted like the cosmos. I saw this once and it changed how I view the faction.
3- Build a 30 model max Slaaneshi themed warband. Find that god! Stick his face on milk cartons if you have to!
4- Dwarf warband. Drunken dwarfs and dwarf explorers. Nuff said.
5. Orc/goblin/ogre warband (either one or all of them)- Loot the realms! Have something looted from every other race and realm! Wot's yors iz mine or else I'll krump ya an' take it.
6. Collect mountains of plastic/metal/resin and have it accumulate with you having the desire to paint it, but never actually getting around to do it
7. Make a scenario where Karl Franz has to try and steal Ghal Maraz from Optimus er, Celestant Prime with a guest appearance by Archaon on murderhorsedragondogbirdchaosthing.
Ok, so there's 7 and not 10 but that's what I think would be kinda neat to do in AoS, if I ever started it (wanted to in the past, but that itch kinda died and I became a heretic instead)
Kilkrazy wrote: It's the fact that it is an AoS-specific board that makes the title "blah blah blah for AoS" unnecessary and therefore open to interpretation as a two fingers up to everything that isn't AoS.
You only need to read the results to see that this is true.
Haha, hahaha. This is excellent. Blaming the victim is always correct - Matt deserved to get trounced because he antagonized a bunch of whiny babies! (not naming names, I'm sure there's NO whiny babies on this thread whose sole purpose in life is to complain about Age of Sigmar)
It's not blaming the victim because MongooseMatt isn't a victim.
A discussion forum is a forum for discussion. If you make a post, you are silly not to expect people to discuss it. People have a right to do so.
Not all that discussion necessarily will be positive, but that's the way things work. You can frame the tone of the discussion by the way you present your argument.
Mongoose Matt, as far as I'm aware, runs Mongoose Publishing http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/, who publish, amongst other things, the excellent and underrated Judge Dredd miniatures game. I think he did work for GW back in the day, but is no shill!
coldgaming wrote: AoS graciously also lets you never have to play the game to post every day on a forum about the game about why it doesn't work.
This insightful quote (exalted btw) easily explains, well, literally, everything!
Except it doesn't. You don't need to play to know that given the disproportion in model strenght, a boost to the side with less models is an awful rule, for example.
coldgaming wrote: AoS graciously also lets you never have to play the game to post every day on a forum about the game about why it doesn't work.
This insightful quote (exalted btw) easily explains, well, literally, everything!
Except it doesn't. You don't need to play to know that given the disproportion in model strenght, a boost to the side with less models is an awful rule, for example.
How so?
20 gryphon knights vs 31 skeletons, should the gryphons get sudden death victory condition?
1. Create a Unique Force Not Possible Before - In Warmachine, the factions don't work together, and because of the combo heavy nature of the game, creating suboptimal forces is a great way to have a very unfun gaming experience. Warmachine is a game built around a handful of builds - so much so that tournaments are won based on anticipating which builds you will end up facing.
Having unoptimal and not having possibility to do so are different things. In AOS take unoptimal list and you'll get smacked same as warmachine as well. Gee. Duh.
So false.
2. Play Hero Deathmatch - In Warmachine, the casters are extremely unbalanced against each other individually, and if you played casters only, there's a great chance that Butcher or Feora will decimate the other casters before they get a chance to do anything. Retribution even has a caster with zero offensive capabilities.
I'm sure goblin hero is going to have a fighting chance against Archaon as well...
False.
4. Have a Massive Dogfight - Warmachine doesn't really have many flying units, and the game doesn't work without casters (of which, I can only think of two flying casters, both Cryx)
Okay I'll give you that. Not that it really affects because it's still 2d thingie. Imagine wings on your warmachines and effect is same.
5. Collect Lots of Small Forces Rather Than One Big One - Because of the standard point size games, you'll have a minimum of a 25 pt army for each faction, since you can't combine stuff. Even then, most players prefer 50 pts, so you'll probably need a minimum of 50 pts too. It is very, very hard in Warmachine to dabble in multiple factions without committing to a large army. I say this as someone with 5 different WM armies (Cryx, Retribution, Menoth, Khador, Convergence).
Remove points from warmachine. Takes about 1 second.
Newsflash: Points aren't "cannot remove them" in warmachine. It's what players want. Same as AOS. You can do that THE same possibility to do minimum pointless armies in warmachine as in AOS.
False.
7. Create a New Warscroll - Due to the precarious balance Warmachine enjoys, creating a new unit that doesn't horribly break the game is rather difficult. AoS is a simple game without innate balance, so it is easier to balance around the created unit rather than balancing the unit within the game's very specific framework.
Again that's what players choose to do. Creating units is just as easy in both. Both players agree, new unit done. You ain't playing any new warscroll in AOS without opponent consent. In warmachine you can bring in new unit same as AOS if opponent consents.
False.
9. Play Through the Official Campaign Storyline - I think the last campaign that Warmachine had was in the MK1 Colossals book. Everybody just plays Steamroller.
That's because players wants. Nothing to do with rules but WHAT PLAYERS WANT.
False.
So you have one of just about right though cosmetic thingie since there's no real flying rules that is any different to game on flat board. Others are again what you can do WITH SAME EFFORT in warmachine(or FB 8th for that matter) as in AOS.
Removing rules is easy. Adding rules is harder. Therefore AOS removing rules makes it harder to do what other games can do than reverse.
You are confusing rules with player choices. What you listed were player options which are identical within games.
The problem with thread title is that it's actually misleading. Who are looking here are probably going to be "hey wonder if there's actually something you CAN'T do in other games that you can do in AOS". Then they find it's 100% standard list of any games.
Less confusing title or actually 10 cool things that actually depend on AOS rules...That would be lot less confusing title.
coldgaming wrote: AoS graciously also lets you never have to play the game to post every day on a forum about the game about why it doesn't work.
This insightful quote (exalted btw) easily explains, well, literally, everything!
Except it doesn't. You don't need to play to know that given the disproportion in model strenght, a boost to the side with less models is an awful rule, for example.
How so?
20 gryphon knights vs 31 skeletons, should the gryphons get sudden death victory condition?
Herzlos wrote: And that'll give either side a good game?
No. If both players have deployed that as their armies, then they will have a terrible game but at least sudden death will ensure it's over by turn 4 at the latest.
That's not a problem with the rules, that's a problem with two people playing a game who obviously have very different approaches to it.
'Good' games have always been down to the players playing that game, regardless of the system.
'Bad' games will occur in any system, no matter how finely balanced the force construction is or well crafted the rules are.
Even assuming that the two players in the example had never met before,and the only discussion was agreeing to play the 4-page rules vanilla with no extras, how were they expecting to have a good game?
Was that all they had/brought with them? Who deployed first? Did neither of them say anything?
Back to the topic, I do love how some individuals complain that AoS is unplayable because it has no intrinsic comp, but when a post like this comes up suggesting ideas for mix'n'match armies the stock response is always "well you could do that in system X!".
It's adorable. You either need comp to play a game, or you don't. You can't hack on a game for not using it then claim you don't have to use it in other games either.
Sqorgar wrote: [pI'll admit when I'm wrong. The rule for the Necrosurgeon just says that it gets a corpse token for models that die within 5". What we missed when we played it was the one paragraph rule on page 63 of the Prime rulebook (buried between the rules for Gunfighter and falling) which said that models only generate one of each type of token. It was an honest mistake, and not the only one we made. My opponent actually resurrected full Mechanithralls rather than the weaker Grunts, though we realized that error later.
I'm actually somewhat relieved that we were mistaken, truth be told - though weakening the resurrective capabilities of the units wouldn't have made the match up any more fun to play.
Which has everything to do with him playing wrong, and you playing poorly.
He used Terminous as his caster, giving all the Mechanithralls tough, and had roughly 30 of them on the table, swarming my models such that they could not use ranged attacks, move, or basically do anything at all.
.
Play better then. I've played against terminus doodspam, and it's fine.
Tough can be worked around. I went up against cryx doodspam at a recent tournament and cleaned house with it. It's amazing how much work sprays can do for you. Or, depending on army, controlling their movement with things like suppressing fire or various spells and feats. You got swarmed because you let the,other guy dictate the flow of the game. Like was mentioned, there are plenty ways of dealing with it.
Herzlos wrote: And that'll give either side a good game?
No. If both players have deployed that as their armies, then they will have a terrible game but at least sudden death will ensure it's over by turn 4 at the latest.
That's not a problem with the rules, that's a problem with two people playing a game who obviously have very different approaches to it.
So it's not the game's fault for being unbalanced as feth, it's the player's fault. Right-o.
Herzlos wrote: And that'll give either side a good game?
No. If both players have deployed that as their armies, then they will have a terrible game but at least sudden death will ensure it's over by turn 4 at the latest.
That's not a problem with the rules, that's a problem with two people playing a game who obviously have very different approaches to it.
'Good' games have always been down to the players playing that game, regardless of the system.
'Bad' games will occur in any system, no matter how finely balanced the force construction is or well crafted the rules are.
Good games make it a lot harder to land in these pathalogically bad cases.
Even assuming that the two players in the example had never met before,and the only discussion was agreeing to play the 4-page rules vanilla with no extras, how were they expecting to have a good game?
Was that all they had/brought with them? Who deployed first? Did neither of them say anything?
Why would they say anything? They were following the rules exactly as written. Maybe they've never played before?
Back to the topic, I do love how some individuals complain that AoS is unplayable because it has no intrinsic comp, but when a post like this comes up suggesting ideas for mix'n'match armies the stock response is always "well you could do that in system X!".
It's adorable. You either need comp to play a game, or you don't. You can't hack on a game for not using it then claim you don't have to use it in other games either.
Not true. With a points system as per any other game, it'd be blindingly obvious how outmatched the skeletons were, and you could compensate for it. You have the option of just throwing them on the table and getting on with it (much easier when you have experience of how the units work), or going strictly by the points and making up equal lists, or some hybrid where you eyeball it based on the points (i.e. I've got about 1000ish points, you've got maybe 1200ish, that's close enough, go).
How are a pair of new players to know that it's a poor match up, and that the sudden death should actually go the other way? It's certainly not the players fault.
Herzlos wrote: And that'll give either side a good game?
No. If both players have deployed that as their armies, then they will have a terrible game but at least sudden death will ensure it's over by turn 4 at the latest.
That's not a problem with the rules, that's a problem with two people playing a game who obviously have very different approaches to it.
So it's not the game's fault for being unbalanced as feth, it's the player's fault. Right-o.
Nice strawman, not what I said. The problem is because one of the players thinks 20 Demigryphs is a 'good' army, the other thinks 31 Skellies is a 'good' army.
Or they may not have any idea about potency of those units at all. But then if they've never played, why does one of then *only* have 20 Demigryph knights? That's the problem with hypothetical, I guess...
But the hallmarks are that these players have very different ideas about what a 'good' game means to them, so they will only ever have bad gamesdue to terrible matchups against each other.
I have encountered exactly the same situation in every other game system I've ever seen, except there the players had lists and points.
Players have a terrible game, chat, decide unit X is broken or unit Y is unusable, adjust their view and carry on.
So if it's not unique to AoS, it's not an AoS problem.
Because there's no framework to identifying that 20 demigryphs isn't equal to 31 skellies, nor any framework to handle balance beyond model count. AoS does nothing to help users find a good matchup, beyond leaving them in the wild to just figure it out.
I've seen the occasional OP unit in a pointed game, but I've never run into a totally unbalanced game unless one of the players has brought an army that's too specialised (like tank hunters when facing an infantry company, or putting all of their points into King Tigers and bunker busters).
coldgaming wrote: AoS graciously also lets you never have to play the game to post every day on a forum about the game about why it doesn't work.
This insightful quote (exalted btw) easily explains, well, literally, everything!
Except it doesn't. You don't need to play to know that given the disproportion in model strenght, a boost to the side with less models is an awful rule, for example.
How so?
3 Bloodthirsters against 10 goblins, is it balanced to give the thirsters sudden death?
I've seen the occasional OP unit in a pointed game, but I've never run into a totally unbalanced game unless one of the players has brought an army that's too specialised (like tank hunters when facing an infantry company, or putting all of their points into King Tigers and bunker busters).
So is that the game's fault that it allows those kind of matchups?
Or is it down to players making decisions within the framework they were given, and sometimes those decisions are bad and require actually playing to realise that?
I've seen the occasional OP unit in a pointed game, but I've never run into a totally unbalanced game unless one of the players has brought an army that's too specialised (like tank hunters when facing an infantry company, or putting all of their points into King Tigers and bunker busters).
So is that the game's fault that it allows those kind of matchups?
Yes. It's only balancing mechanism is utterly terrible. I don't think I can come up with a worse one.
Or is it down to players making decisions within the framework they were given, and sometimes those decisions are bad and require actually playing to realise that?
The players are making decisions within the framework they are given; it's just the framework is more of a hinderance when it comes to balance.
Sure they'll eventually figure it out, but they could easily be put off by the first few terrible games and not bother playing it again.
If you're expecting players to do everything, why provide them with anything?
3 Bloodthirsters against 10 goblins, is it balanced to give the thirsters sudden death?
Of course not.
Would you want to be either of those players?
You seem to think we're talking about players with deliberately terrible match-ups, but the examples are pretty extreme. The point is that for any random combination of armies, out of everything available, without first wasting a couple of games getting a feel for the balance, there's really no way to know what is going to produce a good game*, and if you should ignore their balancing metric.
3 Sigmarines against 10 goblins, sudden death to the sigmarines. Fair?
*I know you can play using the units they proscribe in the campaign books, but that's hardly the creative play AoS supposedly excels at.
3 Bloodthirsters against 10 goblins, is it balanced to give the thirsters sudden death?
Of course not.
Would you want to be either of those players?
Of course I wouldn't want to either player in that situation, that's why a rule giving bonuses to the force with less models, regardless of context or the models actually power in the game rules is never going to work as a practical balancing mechanic in reality.
"Easily build a balanced list and game set up" wasn't one of the 10 Cool Things, so I don't it's on topic of this thread to criticise that it can't be done.
(Whether it can or can't be done is another argument.)
Herzlos wrote: You mean the counterproductive balancing mechanism?
Then yes, GW have managed to produce a comp system that's worse than no comp.
But otherwise, comp is better than no comp. At least comp gives you some headstart.
Aos official comp < no comp < comp.
What is the AoS official comp?
The balancing mechanisms provided in AoS (sudden death & friends).
I'll re-write:
AoS's attempt at providing balance < no comp < comp.
So to you then, balance and comp are the same thing?
Because neither is a requirement or a product of the other.
And to just shut off the 3 BT/10 gobbo's bit - the BT player set up at least 1 BTafter the Goblin player had deployed their only unit and already had at least 1 BT on the board.
That's all you need to know about the people involved in that game.
Which does bring us back to a recurring theme on this thread - just because you can be a turbodouche, doesn't mean you should be a turbodouche.
additional rules to try and instill balance based on some metric and a comp are trying to achieve the same thing, yes.
We're not talking specifically about 3 BT / 10 gobbos. I used the example of 3 Stormcast / 10 gobbos.
Which does bring us back to a recurring theme on this thread - just because you can be a turbodouche, doesn't mean you should be a turbodouche.
Definitely. It's just with this game it's so easy to inadvertently become a turbodouche without meaning to or even realising it. Their balancing system can then make it worse.
Player A has 5 Stormcast Eternals (they bought a box because it was shiny) and player B has 20 Night Goblins (they bought a box because they look cool). Are they balanced from the off? Does A or B need to make any allowances? Should player A get a balancing victory condition because he's outnumbered 4 to 1?
Back to the topic, I do love how some individuals complain that AoS is unplayable because it has no intrinsic comp, but when a post like this comes up suggesting ideas for mix'n'match armies the stock response is always "well you could do that in system X!"
You don't need no comp to not use comp.
You can, if you don't want comp, not use comp in a game that has no no comp rules.
However, in a no comp game you can't not play no comp games without creating a comp, which is what many 'no comp' matches with comp systems were about in the first place.
In short, you can if you choose, play a game of chess with all knights against a greater number of pawns, in flagrant disregard for the rules of composition.
The rules of composition provide a framework for the game and choosing to step outside that should be a choice rather than the norm.
I shouldn't have to sit down with my opponent and reinvent chess every time I want a pickup game.
richstrach wrote: Mongoose Matt, as far as I'm aware, runs Mongoose Publishing http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/, who publish, amongst other things, the excellent and underrated Judge Dredd miniatures game. I think he did work for GW back in the day, but is no shill!
Matt can obviously answer this better himself, but I believe he's working for GW again as he's one of the winners in the fiction writing contest they held a while back?
Unless that 'contract' and/or 'assignment' is up/was a one time deal?
Which does bring us back to a recurring theme on this thread - just because you can be a turbodouche, doesn't mean you should be a turbodouche.
Definitely. It's just with this game it's so easy to inadvertently become a turbodouche without meaning to or even realising it. Their balancing system can then make it worse.
Player A has 5 Stormcast Eternals (they bought a box because it was shiny) and player B has 20 Night Goblins (they bought a box because they look cool). Are they balanced from the off? Does A or B need to make any allowances? Should player A get a balancing victory condition because he's outnumbered 4 to 1?
Yes, the Stormcast Player is at a numerical disadvantage so by the rules would get an SD condition. If A or B were in a position to make any allowances it wouldn't just be 5 Stormcast up against 20 Nightgoblins, would it?
In terms of 'balance', game is roughly in the Nightgoblin's favour depending on make up of unit and movement factors.
But let's have a look at what he can pick...
Assassinate isn't an option because the Night Goblin unit doesn't have that keyword
Blunt is pointless with one unit
Endure is an option but would mean spending 6 turns running away
Seize Ground is possible but will result in the same thing Blunt does.
Besides, if you're playing with battleplans, sudden death is normally the first thing to go as a victory condition.
For those who insist WM/H can be played without points ... well, sure it can. Just like you can assemble a puzzle so the picture is garbled. The "picture" WM/H's rules make is competitive gaming, on a pick up game basis. When you insist that AoS must come out to the same "picture" you are severely missing the point.
richstrach wrote: who publish, amongst other things, the excellent and underrated Judge Dredd miniatures game
Small correction: Warlord Games now publishes the Judge Dredd line for Mongoose. You can even get the core rulebook in PDF from WLG's site for free.
RoperPG wrote: Besides, if you're playing with battleplans, sudden death is normally the first thing to go as a victory condition.
I think GW poorly communicate about the 4-pages of "free rules." There is basically 3 pages of basic rules that is shared between all the battle plans and 1 page that is pretty much the "free" battle plan. Many official battle plans have different victory conditions that does not include what most AoS-critics don't like about AoS - the Sudden Death parameter from the free download. I don't think GW have stated the rules and guidelines they have provided gives balance games? If GW did, then yeah horrible design of the game. I think majority of people who play/like AoS knows that the rules don't provide balance games; however, if you want a fairly balanced game to determine which player had the best tactics, you absolutely do not need a point system to do so. Point/comp system does help with pick-up games.
I think GW poorly communicate about the 4-pages of "free rules."
Agreed; they should have made a separate PDF for the initial battleplan and kept it separate.
akai wrote: I don't think GW have stated the rules and guidelines they have provided gives balance games?
Directly, no, they don't. On some Battleplans it will clearly advise that one side has the advantage as part of the scenario/story and to consider this when setting the game up. The army trying to do X is in a last ditch situation and as such the scenario favours the opposing force.
This applies to some Battleplans.
I still think this is off topic, but it seems to me reasonable for players to assume the rules are intended to provide a balanced game for the following reasons.
1. The Sudden Death rule clearly is meant to provide balance in situations of outnumbering.
2. The Summoning rules clearly is meant to balance the effect of some armies being able to summon 'free' units.
3. People like fair games and nearly all games are intended to be fair.
4. Owing to 3, games without a fair setup usually contain designer's notes to explain why.
Kilkrazy wrote: People like fair games and nearly all games are intended to be fair.
Echoing your question to Matt, I know you've played wargames long enough to know that fairness is not only or always a matter of each side having an army of the same "points value," with handicap mechanics thrown in to give wiggle room, considering points-based list building is just one branch of miniatures game design. Fairness can also mean, for example, having a clear idea of what it will take to win. Or it can mean that a referee makes unbiased calls. AoS strikes me as harkening to scenario-based gaming, in which fairness is mostly a matter of the mutual consent of the players rather than a legalistic approach to rulebook referencing.
This conversation calls to mind the one we are having over in Easy E's review threads concerning Dux Bellorum and A World Aflame, where the concept of a "beginner's game" has been brought up but not really defined. One of the underlying assumptions there seems to be that explicit rules and a legalistic approach are better for beginners. I'm not sure if that is true; I think it's more likely that the assumption reflects more about the folks making it than any universal truth about wargaming. AoS is surely nothing if not a beginner's war game. But then again, what could be more natural than agreeing among the friends you play with that a given game will entail X, Y, and Z? That's how we play as kids, after all.
Kilkrazy wrote: I still think this is off topic, but it seems to me reasonable for players to assume the rules are intended to provide a balanced game for the following reasons.
1. The Sudden Death rule clearly is meant to provide balance in situations of outnumbering.
2. The Summoning rules clearly is meant to balance the effect of some armies being able to summon 'free' units.
3. People like fair games and nearly all games are intended to be fair.
4. Owing to 3, games without a fair setup usually contain designer's notes to explain why.
It is very reasonable for players to assume rules are intended to provide a balanced game. I think though, that we can agree it is a wrong assumption for AoS? If you look at the hardback books, before the sections go into the battle plans and rules, there is a page where the authors of the books basically wrote, for better or worse: the rules provide a bare bones framework for the players to fight "glorious battles of your own devising"..."limited only by your imagination."
P.S. I think the thread was already going off-topic since the first reply!
Edit (Adding another reply):
Manchu wrote: But then again, what could be more natural than agreeing among the friends you play with that a given game will entail X, Y, and Z? That's how we play as kids, after all.
MongooseMatt wrote: 2. Play Hero Deathmatch Got a bunch of mates and fancy a quick, but bloody and fun game? Play hero deathmatch!
You all select a single Hero from whichever army takes your fancy, and then fight until there is only one left!
If you are boring (!), you may stipulate a limit (say, 5 Wounds maximum) but if there are a few of you present, try playing with no limits. Sure, someone may bring Archaon or Nagash, but you will find everyone else quickly gangs up against him, making for a more level playing field. And just imagine the glory if your hero is the one to bring Archaon down!
A variant of this is to play King of the Hill, where you place a tall piece of scenery and make the victory condition to be the lone hero standing at the top of it after a certain time (whether you make it a number of minutes or number of rounds, doesn’t really matter which).
This kind of deathmatch game is really quick to play, plus it allows you to pull out heroes you might not use too often (just how good would Festus the Leechlord be, eh?). It is also very fast-paced, a lot of fun, doesn’t take long, and there are always backstabbing shenanigans as players make alliances with one another, then break them just as quickly!
This is something I've been considering recently. Perhaps a Realmgate at either end of the board where Heroes respawn (but miss a turn). Then have objectives and units too. Something resembling a MOBA videogame map/mission.
Did you see the AoS news thread?
There's an early version of an official Battleplan that is similar to this.
I'm going to get some friends and try it at our next gaming day.
sing your life wrote: This thread is seriously off the OP's topic by now. I think it's time to put it out of misery before it becomes even more of a trainwreck.
It's hard to condone locking a thread because people who don't like AoS pile in to undermine the premise of the OP such that answering their criticisms is suddenly off-topic. If we locked every thread in which this happened, I wonder how many AoS threads would remain unlocked.
I thought i would just point out for those that say that the game is scenario based you can't really point to the game having "free rules" as a positive because the scenarios are locked behind a paywall =p . But i do think AOS moving to online rules and having an app for them is the greatest strength of AOS.
When it comes to the balancing of a game argument this is where i feel AOS made a big mistake. Easier rules was a great idea to lure in new players but a complete lack of a balance structure (as pointed out above the sudden death by army size is just terrible) was a huge mistake. I have two brothers and when we all got into Warhammer we were young. We never agreed on anything so of course whoever won a game took a "broken" or "unbalanced" unit. One of the strengths of warhammer 40k and fantasy was that one of us could say to the other "we agreed on 1000 points and thats what i took".Trying to self balance a game would have been a nightmare at that age and even currently i could image arguments over what is "fair". I have never been a power gamer (i run an all goblin themed list) but its important for me that a game have drawn up boundaries that we can all agree are fair aka a points value. We have done no points and special scenarios but its an exception that everyone agrees on. Trying to figure out whats fair with a large group of people is a huge reason why my gaming group quickly gave up on AOS.
I agree with Manchu's point and it's one I've often made myself, that games can be made fair (balanced) by methods such as unequal forces with unequal victory conditions, not just by equal forces (equal points values.)
It also seems to me that AoS is intended to be fair (balanced) in some sense, has a starter set that is fairly well balanced, and contains rules to push the setup and conduct of games in that direction.
However, as this point is off the topic (as I mentioned earlier,) let's drop it and discuss the actual 10 things in the original post.
/steps blinking into the sunlight/
I think the freedom to do as you want force-wise is one of the strengths of the game. If you can dream it, you can build it, etc. etc.
What I've found particularly interesting is the number of people who have obviously had similar ideas for some time but only now have felt able to go after their haunted/Chaos forest dwellers, Seraphon Dinosaur herds, etc. and one case I've actually seen with my own eyes, a Grand Alliance: Order air force...
So, two questions at this point. Is this thread and undercover advert for AoS? And is or is not MongooseMatt under the employ of GW at this time. Sorry if Im derailing here but I feel these two questions have yet to be answered.
It seems like you are asking only one question, right?
Also do you guys really not know who Matthew Sprange is? Besides being a game designer and the co-founder (and owner?) of Mongoose Publishing, he has done some free lance writing for GW over the years. And from his own keyboard, posted on this very forum where anyone who looks can find it:
MongooseMatt wrote: I have a little sideline in GW retail, and AoS has exploded Fantasy sales. Drips and drabs before, regular turnover now. And, here's the thing - those sales are increasing in pace, not slowing down. We are seeing more people (re)turning to AoS, and we are seeing them spending more when they do.
The idea that this guy is trying to trick anyone into liking AoS is equally laughable and miserable.
Manchu wrote: It seems like you are asking only one question, right?
Also do you guys really not know who Matthew Sprange is? Besides being a game designer and the co-founder (and owner?) of Mongoose Publishing, he has done some free lance writing for GW over the years. And from his own keyboard, posted on this very forum where anyone who looks can find it:
MongooseMatt wrote: I have a little sideline in GW retail, and AoS has exploded Fantasy sales. Drips and drabs before, regular turnover now. And, here's the thing - those sales are increasing in pace, not slowing down. We are seeing more people (re)turning to AoS, and we are seeing them spending more when they do.
The idea that this guy is trying to trick anyone into liking AoS is equally laughable and miserable.
I agree. However, many of the more recent posts and AoS prose do make it look like he has some kind of pecuniary interest in it's success.
Why is so hard to conceive that some of us just like AoS? Why do people need to flood the forum with conspiracy theories and ridiculous accusations, I mean the amount of posts regarding these silly things and boring spammed to exhaustion jokes is just too much on these topics.
Its not even contradictory arguments most of the cases ( bar some exceptions) just childish jokes...AHAH we get the jokes very funny... repeat it 100 times in every AoS thread and your just a troll.
Herzlos wrote: And that'll give either side a good game?
No. If both players have deployed that as their armies, then they will have a terrible game but at least sudden death will ensure it's over by turn 4 at the latest.
That's not a problem with the rules, that's a problem with two people playing a game who obviously have very different approaches to it.
'Good' games have always been down to the players playing that game, regardless of the system.
'Bad' games will occur in any system, no matter how finely balanced the force construction is or well crafted the rules are.
Even assuming that the two players in the example had never met before,and the only discussion was agreeing to play the 4-page rules vanilla with no extras, how were they expecting to have a good game?
Was that all they had/brought with them? Who deployed first? Did neither of them say anything?
Back to the topic, I do love how some individuals complain that AoS is unplayable because it has no intrinsic comp, but when a post like this comes up suggesting ideas for mix'n'match armies the stock response is always "well you could do that in system X!".
It's adorable. You either need comp to play a game, or you don't. You can't hack on a game for not using it then claim you don't have to use it in other games either.
So it's a rule that ensures that bad games end earlier? That's even worse lol
It doesn't matter whether the two players came into proper gentleman agreement after a fruitful discussion or turned out to be competitive cavemen incapable of sharing the experience of battle GW style. The rule itself is awful, doesn't help balance (in fact spoils it), doesn't help narrative, doesn't help gentelmanly agreed and carefuly discussed game. It would be times better if they just wrote "if you feel that one side is significantly weaker, you can give it sudden death victory condition" as what is in the 4 pages doesn't make sense unless written drunk in a pub as a prank or 2 minutes before the deadline hangovered, sleep deprived and under strong influence of Baudelaire's works.
Whether AoS is good without comp or not and whether you can play other games like you play AoS are two different discussions. I say when big part of your customer base plays pick up games in shops, tournaments or just likes writing lists then releasing a game without points is pretty fething terrible. On the other hand, if you want to play an uncomped scenario with your friends then other systems are just as good for that as AoS, actualy much better imo as other systems have much more tactical depth to them. In the context of replacing wfb, AoS is abysmal and like a spit in the face and in general, as a standalone game it's nothing special - just a simple and shallow little game with heroic heroes fighting over Clichea.
Sorry for dragging the offtop further, haven't had a chance to answer and it started with my question, won't post more on that.
Yeah, tournaments, whfb tables at shops, army lists threads on multiple forums and few editions over the years Using point system as balance mechanism.
Those are all self-selecting venues, which ties into Navarro's question about why certain posters here cannot accept that some people actually like AoS. But I never questioned whether anyone at all likes competitive gaming, pick up gaming, and points-based list building. I am well aware that those people exist. My question gets to your claim that such people make up a big part of GW's customer base. And even if we just assume they do, we can in the same way assume that an even bigger portion just want to by models and there is a lot more money to be made selling models that never get assembled or played with than there is in selling air-tight tournament rules (something GW has never done). It really comes down to whether you start from the idea that the people running GW are morons. And if that's where you start, I'd propose you examine why. I guess most of us have some bad feelings about GW. They don't make exactly what I want. The prices are absurdly high. &etc. But none of this adds up to GW being so completely bonkers as to kill a super profitable line in favor of something no rational person could ever like. WHFB was probably not the former and AoS is certainly not the latter.
Well, what is big as in how many would be significant enough so that crapping all over them stinks enough?
Of course I don't know for sure, we don't have numbers. I say it's a good guess but feel free to add "assuming that" or sth to that sentence, sadly AoS will still be a terrible replacement for many other reasons.
Albo what if it's a little part, does it change much?
Sure, if pick up gamers are not buying stuff why design products for them? As a rule set, WHFB encourages you to buy an army. It's a big investment. It usually needs to be purchased over time, leading to any number of points that the customer could lose interest and move on. Maybe you never even get started because you only like a few of the kits for a certain faction. AoS can be played with fewer miniatures. And there are fewer constraints regarding which miniatures you can buy to play. And it works really nicely for people who have large and ever-expanding collections.
Then keep whfb 8th on mail order, sell square bases and let people play it in shops.
Release an AoS supplement with point system.
Something, if AoS was handled differently, it could be little less terrible. If it was released alongside whfb, it would actualy be quite funny as GW take on He Man.
NAVARRO wrote: Why is so hard to conceive that some of us just like AoS? Why do people need to flood the forum with conspiracy theories and ridiculous accusations, I mean the amount of posts regarding these silly things and boring spammed to exhaustion jokes is just too much on these topics.
Its not even contradictory arguments most of the cases ( bar some exceptions) just childish jokes...AHAH we get the jokes very funny... repeat it 100 times in every AoS thread and your just a troll.
Its not that its hard to conceive that anyone likes AoS. Its that I do not appreciate when a company sends people to advert their product on a message board. Its even worse when they try to manipulate forum readers for said company. Im not saying he is or isnt. Manchu seems to think so and I am leaning to him being a GW plant but that makes no difference to other posters who can and will come to a opinion of their own. Its not a conspiracy when GW has already put a few plants on Dakka when AoS launched. If the product is good enough then you dont need to employ such antics.
Full Disclosure. I was into AoS at the start. But the complete lack of balance has killed pick up play in my area of Los Angeles California. Its a big city and not a single shop ive been to is playing it. Even the GW shops are pretty much 40k only at this point. So im neither a hater or a fanboy.
Considering the online and customer interaction skills we've seen from GW, they're really one of the last companies I would suspect of "planting" people on forums to steer public opinion. I think that's some conspiracy theorizing.
Maybe some people just love AoS, and I think a lot of them are trying to counter the emotional wave of negativity that hit on its launch. If you follow the social media community for the game, which has grown a lot in the last few months, genuine AoS "proselytizers" are all over the place. There is something to the game that is attracting people.
This reminds me though, I remember one of the funniest things I've read in the last few months was a post on Warseer from someone who literally said it was his mission in life to discourage people from playing AoS at every opportunity.
Edit: This goes to a post I made awhile ago. I don't consider these games like religion or politics. I'm not here to debate where the hobby I like sucks or not, or if I'm logically wrong for liking it. If I ever post in another gaming subforum, it wouldn't be to argue why that game sucks, or accuse people of being plants for liking it. I would post in there if I found something I liked about it. I'm here and on all mediums where my hobby is to enjoy it. People bring up the "but it's a discussion forum" in response to that, and that's fine, but I think the people who live to be negative in every thread turn a lot of people off forums and to more friendly venues. I think that is part of why the AoS Facebook pages have about 500:1 the activity as this AoS forum.
Herzlos wrote: Because there's no framework to identifying that 20 demigryphs isn't equal to 31 skellies, nor any framework to handle balance beyond model count. AoS does nothing to help users find a good matchup, beyond leaving them in the wild to just figure it out.
I've seen the occasional OP unit in a pointed game, but I've never run into a totally unbalanced game unless one of the players has brought an army that's too specialised (like tank hunters when facing an infantry company, or putting all of their points into King Tigers and bunker busters).
So basically you want a game that holds your hand from start to end. AoS is more like a strategy video game. Nobody tells you what is strong and what isn't. You look at the stats and you figure it out. Worst case, you experience it and you adapt. If you figured out 20 Demigryphs are stronger than 30 Skeletons, why wouldn't everybody else? The Skeleton player will go home, look at the stats of the Demigryphs, and bring some Archai in the next game. And that's worst case scenario, if the two players don't even communicate. Cause if they do, one of them can play a fun army around a skeleton theme and the other one agrees to bring a minimum amount of Knights to have a heroic last stand situation. You guys forget it's a game to have fun with.
At this point I'm not even sure how you guys play games at all. I keep reading "my group of friends stopped playing because of imbalance". Really? How much friends were you in the first place? In my group of friends, we have 7 armies for AoS now. We all play everything and try themed comps. We eyeball the balance because we all know the stats of everything (it's all available for free...), and we just have fun. Now and then we try completely broken lists and we all laugh around it (3 slanns and 3 heros saurus deployed with 15 in back up for summoning wins so far).
When we got back to the hobby, close to nobody was playing AoS in our local GW. We brought our armies many times throughout the months and showed people how to play. Many recurrent customers have started armies of their own and some of them with very creative themes. The game is far from perfect, and we often add our own set of rules to it, but seriously, if you reach a point where you cannot bear the sight of it anymore, you're probably playing with the wrong people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: I have never been a power gamer (i run an all goblin themed list) but its important for me that a game have drawn up boundaries that we can all agree are fair aka a points value.
This is a perfect example of what I'm saying in the post above. If you show up with a full goblin themed army at a table with either me or my friends, we're going to talk about it and field an equally fun army and hopefully balanced one. Probably a full Tomb King Chariot list led by Settra, which is weak as hell but glorious to play. Or maybe only Treelords, to have an epic game of David vs Goliath.
Last time I played in my local GW, there was a kid with 50 wounds of Stormcasts who was to play against me, but I only had my super broken Seraphons with me. I decided to give him a realmgate from which every unit he loses can respawn through on a 4+. He still lost, but that was a fun last stand game with a lot of tension during the respawning rolls.
Its not that its hard to conceive that anyone likes AoS. Its that I do not appreciate when a company sends people to advert their product on a message board. Its even worse when they try to manipulate forum readers for said company. Im not saying he is or isnt. Manchu seems to think so and I am leaning to him being a GW plant but that makes no difference to other posters who can and will come to a opinion of their own. Its not a conspiracy when GW has already put a few plants on Dakka when AoS launched. If the product is good enough then you dont need to employ such antics.
That's some serious paranoia there. Assuming that anyone who disagrees with you is somehow getting paid for it, or is endeavoring to manipulate you like some sort of mind slave reeks of insecurity. I've been accused of working for GW before, but I always assumed it was a metaphor for my unbridled enthusiasm and blissful, willful ignorance - I didn't think anyone was actually worried that I was a plant.
I don't think Matt is a plant, but even if he was, so what? Dude contributes greatly to this community. I mean, what's the end game here? That GW convinces someone to like something? Those bastards! It's not like they are undermining public acceptance of global warming or introducing misinformation to cover up wrongdoing - the worst thing you could accuse them of is that they want you to be their customer. Hardly a sin worthy of mistrusting every AoS-positive post and assuming sinister intent...
Except it isnt paranoia. At least one plant was put on dakka at AoS launch and was called out for it and stopped posting. How can anyone disagree with me? I havent made a point yet other to ask Manchu a question. Perhaps you are in confusion as to what I posted. But thanks for the baseless insult. The problem with corporate plants is it is underhanded at best and insulting at worst. If a product is good enough it doesnt need this type of advert. This happens ALL the time on video game forums. Very few companies are above this, and why should they be? It works (to a extent).
Another disclosure, I find both the fanboy and the hater to be hopeless. I find myself firmly in the middle of the AoS drama.I just dont like Shills.
Table wrote: Except it isnt paranoia. At least one plant was put on dakka at AoS launch and was called out for it and stopped posting. How can anyone disagree with me? I havent made a point yet other to ask Manchu a question. Perhaps you are in confusion as to what I posted. But thanks for the baseless insult. The problem with corporate plants is it is underhanded at best and insulting at worst. If a product is good enough it doesnt need this type of advert. This happens ALL the time on video game forums. Very few companies are above this, and why should they be? It works (to a extent).
Another disclosure, I find both the fanboy and the hater to be hopeless. I find myself firmly in the middle of the AoS drama.I just dont like Shills.
Riiiiight. So a guy who runs his own games publishing company is a GW plant.
I cannot remember the name of the guy but there is a prolific Dakka / Warseer poster who is a community rep for mantic - don't recall anyone telling him to go away.
Matt's blog, by the way, started in Feb 2010. And isn't GW exclusive.
Even in tin-foil hat land, Matt's posts are a great read.
Full disclosure, I was a part timer at GW nearly 15 years ago. I can show you my P45 to prove I left.
Now, can we stop attacking the poster, get back on topic (as requested by KK), and go back to discussing Matt's ideas?
Oh, and true GW shill would be in trouble for mentioning eBay or products GW don't make.
Table wrote: Except it isnt paranoia. At least one plant was put on dakka at AoS launch and was called out for it and stopped posting. How can anyone disagree with me? I havent made a point yet other to ask Manchu a question. Perhaps you are in confusion as to what I posted. But thanks for the baseless insult. The problem with corporate plants is it is underhanded at best and insulting at worst. If a product is good enough it doesnt need this type of advert. This happens ALL the time on video game forums. Very few companies are above this, and why should they be? It works (to a extent).
Another disclosure, I find both the fanboy and the hater to be hopeless. I find myself firmly in the middle of the AoS drama.I just dont like Shills.
I'll bite. Links to previous "plants" being called out and them admitting so, please :-)
Im far to lazy to dig through my post history, but if you want to be my guest. Its funny that people are so shocked that these kind of things happen. Its pretty common by now and (sadly) a standard. As I said, happens in game forums all the time. I dont know if Matt is a shill, im leaning in that direction thanks to Manchus post. Im not attacking him, just questioning the motives for this thread, and it seems im not alone. But go ahead and make comments about paranoia and tin foil hats, if that is going to make you feel warm inside. Perhaps Matt himself would like to comment, perhaps hes not a shill and above it. I really dont know. I can say this thread is pretty useless at this point.
Player A has 5 Stormcast Eternals (they bought a box because it was shiny) and player B has 20 Night Goblins (they bought a box because they look cool). Are they balanced from the off? Does A or B need to make any allowances? Should player A get a balancing victory condition because he's outnumbered 4 to 1?
Yes, the Stormcast Player is at a numerical disadvantage so by the rules would get an SD condition. If A or B were in a position to make any allowances it wouldn't just be 5 Stormcast up against 20 Nightgoblins, would it?
I don't know, why wouldn't it?
In terms of 'balance', game is roughly in the Nightgoblin's favour depending on make up of unit and movement factors.
How do you come to that conclusion? Is it based on the stats, or just a gut feeling after playing with similar units? What can I do (beyond getting some proxy bases and a notepad out) to come to the same conclusion?
So basically you want a game that holds your hand from start to end.
Not at all. I just don't want a game that dumps me in the woods with no map and not even a sign saying "the fun is that way". I cut my teeth on 80's/90's written games that made WHFB seem streamline with all the tables (because the school would only buy our club historic games and not 40K 2nd Ed). Some people would prefer hand-holding, and if I were to play 40K with my friends I'd be the one doing all the handholding. If I'm putting that much work in, I'll just port some other game to the Oldhammer world.
AoS is more like a strategy video game. Nobody tells you what is strong and what isn't. You look at the stats and you figure it out. Worst case, you experience it and you adapt.
That's fine, but you're not playing against AI, and adapting can be slow and expensive. In order to get a feel for balance at least one of you needs to suffer through some horrible games first, and it starts getting good if they don't quit.
If you figured out 20 Demigryphs are stronger than 30 Skeletons, why wouldn't everybody else?
Exactly; it's not as if it depends on the players. That's why I'd have appreciated someone at GW putting together something that means I don't need to do all this legwork myself.
The Skeleton player will go home, look at the stats of the Demigryphs, and bring some Archai in the next game.
Assuming he's not already been put off (we're talking about new players here - old players will have figured it out), and can afford to get and get some Archai for the next game; he might instead decide to just go out and buy X-Wing or Munchkin instead.
And that's worst case scenario, if the two players don't even communicate. Cause if they do, one of them can play a fun army around a skeleton theme and the other one agrees to bring a minimum amount of Knights to have a heroic last stand situation. You guys forget it's a game to have fun with.
But that communication relies on at least one of them already having the experience to do so; if neither of you know enough about the game (because you've just returned from the GW store with your first boxes and glued your wee plastic dudes together), you've got nothing to negotiate with.
At this point I'm not even sure how you guys play games at all. I keep reading "my group of friends stopped playing because of imbalance". Really? How much friends were you in the first place? In my group of friends, we have 7 armies for AoS now. We all play everything and try themed comps. We eyeball the balance because we all know the stats of everything (it's all available for free...), and we just have fun. Now and then we try completely broken lists and we all laugh around it (3 slanns and 3 heros saurus deployed with 15 in back up for summoning wins so far).
They never said they don't still do stuff as friends, they just don't play Warhammer anymore. Others have gaming-friends where they only meet up to play games, or play at clubs.
Me personally, I play games with 2 of my super-casual buddies every Friday, normally for about an hour before we watch a movie. One was quite into WHFB but was losing interest before AoS dropped, then sold off his significant Bret army (at a huge loss) and has no interest in AoS. The other used to collect and paint GW stuff but was horrified at the price. We normally just play board games or X-Wing (which is where I think AoS's real competition is - if you just want to roll dice and have beer - why would you chose AoS over Munchkin or Risk?).
I'm also a member of 3 different gaming groups (and socialise with maybe 4 of the members outside of gaming), most do pre-arranged games (1 is mostly Frostgrave/Malifaux, 1 is mostly Bolt Action/Dust, 1 is mostly Flames Of War/Malifaux/Board Games). In that sphere, there's virtually no interest in AoS (beyond some initial WTF and some derision), so I can see the same applying elsewhere.
Table wrote: Im far to lazy to dig through my post history, but if you want to be my guest.
It is your responsibility to back up your claims. What you've described does happen in markets but this thread is not an example of it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Has anyone played multiplayer games of AoS yet?
The format of it is certainly open to it, and the latest campaign book has a four player Battleplan in it.
We've played the 3- player scenario from the Seraphon book a couple of times. We've now come to the conclusion that - despite the scenario being 2v1 - all 3 armies must be roughly equal for the 2-player side to stand a chance.
NAVARRO wrote: Why is so hard to conceive that some of us just like AoS? Why do people need to flood the forum with conspiracy theories and ridiculous accusations, I mean the amount of posts regarding these silly things and boring spammed to exhaustion jokes is just too much on these topics.
Its not even contradictory arguments most of the cases ( bar some exceptions) just childish jokes...AHAH we get the jokes very funny... repeat it 100 times in every AoS thread and your just a troll.
The group of people on Dakka that makes it their mission to gak on what other people like, is certainly doing their best to push people that enjoy X game to other sites like Facebook groups or dedicated blogs.
I know I want to spend my free hobby time enjoying it with others who like the same, not waste time reading how much some other people dislike what I enjoy.
I wonder how prevalent this type of behaviour is in the Infinity, Malifaux or other parts of forum compared to the GW related games.
Player A has 5 Stormcast Eternals (they bought a box because it was shiny) and player B has 20 Night Goblins (they bought a box because they look cool). Are they balanced from the off? Does A or B need to make any allowances? Should player A get a balancing victory condition because he's outnumbered 4 to 1?
Yes, the Stormcast Player is at a numerical disadvantage so by the rules would get an SD condition. If A or B were in a position to make any allowances it wouldn't just be 5 Stormcast up against 20 Nightgoblins, would it?
I don't know, why wouldn't it?
In terms of 'balance', game is roughly in the Nightgoblin's favour depending on make up of unit and movement factors.
How do you come to that conclusion? Is it based on the stats, or just a gut feeling after playing with similar units? What can I do (beyond getting some proxy bases and a notepad out) to come to the same conclusion?
So basically you want a game that holds your hand from start to end.
Not at all. I just don't want a game that dumps me in the woods with no map and not even a sign saying "the fun is that way". I cut my teeth on 80's/90's written games that made WHFB seem streamline with all the tables (because the school would only buy our club historic games and not 40K 2nd Ed). Some people would prefer hand-holding, and if I were to play 40K with my friends I'd be the one doing all the handholding. If I'm putting that much work in, I'll just port some other game to the Oldhammer world.
AoS is more like a strategy video game. Nobody tells you what is strong and what isn't. You look at the stats and you figure it out. Worst case, you experience it and you adapt.
That's fine, but you're not playing against AI, and adapting can be slow and expensive. In order to get a feel for balance at least one of you needs to suffer through some horrible games first, and it starts getting good if they don't quit.
If you figured out 20 Demigryphs are stronger than 30 Skeletons, why wouldn't everybody else?
Exactly; it's not as if it depends on the players. That's why I'd have appreciated someone at GW putting together something that means I don't need to do all this legwork myself.
The Skeleton player will go home, look at the stats of the Demigryphs, and bring some Archai in the next game.
Assuming he's not already been put off (we're talking about new players here - old players will have figured it out), and can afford to get and get some Archai for the next game; he might instead decide to just go out and buy X-Wing or Munchkin instead.
And that's worst case scenario, if the two players don't even communicate. Cause if they do, one of them can play a fun army around a skeleton theme and the other one agrees to bring a minimum amount of Knights to have a heroic last stand situation. You guys forget it's a game to have fun with.
But that communication relies on at least one of them already having the experience to do so; if neither of you know enough about the game (because you've just returned from the GW store with your first boxes and glued your wee plastic dudes together), you've got nothing to negotiate with.
At this point I'm not even sure how you guys play games at all. I keep reading "my group of friends stopped playing because of imbalance". Really? How much friends were you in the first place? In my group of friends, we have 7 armies for AoS now. We all play everything and try themed comps. We eyeball the balance because we all know the stats of everything (it's all available for free...), and we just have fun. Now and then we try completely broken lists and we all laugh around it (3 slanns and 3 heros saurus deployed with 15 in back up for summoning wins so far).
They never said they don't still do stuff as friends, they just don't play Warhammer anymore. Others have gaming-friends where they only meet up to play games, or play at clubs.
Me personally, I play games with 2 of my super-casual buddies every Friday, normally for about an hour before we watch a movie. One was quite into WHFB but was losing interest before AoS dropped, then sold off his significant Bret army (at a huge loss) and has no interest in AoS. The other used to collect and paint GW stuff but was horrified at the price. We normally just play board games or X-Wing (which is where I think AoS's real competition is - if you just want to roll dice and have beer - why would you chose AoS over Munchkin or Risk?).
I'm also a member of 3 different gaming groups (and socialise with maybe 4 of the members outside of gaming), most do pre-arranged games (1 is mostly Frostgrave/Malifaux, 1 is mostly Bolt Action/Dust, 1 is mostly Flames Of War/Malifaux/Board Games). In that sphere, there's virtually no interest in AoS (beyond some initial WTF and some derision), so I can see the same applying elsewhere.
Find the right players to play with you.
I have. None of them play AoS
Now you're being disingenuous. If all either players had was 1 unit, how would they be able to make allowances?
In terms of deciding the gobbos have the better deal, given the size of the unit and the weapon options it would vary for them, but in essence it would come down to play testing to see.
A unit of night goblins with a number of netters and spears who get to attack first will make a royal mess of the Stormcast.
If the Stormcast get to attack first, they will be relying heavily on attrition and.lucky rolls to get through the gobbos before they lose.
If I take a tank hunting force vs. a tank heavy force, how am I to know that it's a bad matchup until I've actually tried it out? Even though what ever balancing mechanic that system has says it's balanced?
The purpose of a tank hunting force is to hunt tanks. If it isn't powerful against a tank force there is a basic problem in the rules. It shouldn't be a fair match.
Now you're being disingenuous. If all either players had was 1 unit, how would they be able to make allowances?
I don't think I am, but we're maybe getting confused by terminology. Presumably you can still make allowances by reducing the number of SCE or Gobbos fielded (if you knew how).
In terms of deciding the gobbos have the better deal, given the size of the unit and the weapon options it would vary for them, but in essence it would come down to play testing to see.
That's what I thought, and where we diverge. I believe GW should be doing the playtesting.
A unit of night goblins with a number of netters and spears who get to attack first will make a royal mess of the Stormcast.
If the Stormcast get to attack first, they will be relying heavily on attrition and.lucky rolls to get through the gobbos before they lose.
Fair enough, so it's just down to familiarity with how stats work out during a game?
If I take a tank hunting force vs. a tank heavy force, how am I to know that it's a bad matchup until I've actually tried it out? Even though what ever balancing mechanic that system has says it's balanced?
If you take a tailored list you're always going to do better against whatever you've tailored for. I'd always expect 1000pts of tank hunters to stomp 1000pts of tanks, but for that same 1000pt tank hunter list to get stomped by a 1000pt list of infantry, guns or air support. At least you still have some starting point. 1000pts of tank hunters will stomp 1000pts of tanks less than a 1500pt list of tank hunters, for instance.
But we're not generally dealing with optimized lists outside of scenarios, so I'd expect a well rounded 1000pt army of anything, to be in the same ball park as a 1000pt army of anything else. Playing Flames Of War in a couple of campaigns, I see that to be largely true.
The same can't be said of, say, wounds or model counts. 100 models of anything is pretty unlikely to be in the same ball park as 100 models of anything else, unless the models themselves are pretty similar (for instance, 100 figures a side in a War Of The Roses game would be pretty balanced because both forces are essentially the same, but 100 cataphracti wouldn't be the same as 100 horse archers).
Kilkrazy wrote: The purpose of a tank hunting force is to hunt tanks. If it isn't powerful against a tank force there is a basic problem in the rules. It shouldn't be a fair match.
Sorry, wasn't clear - how am I to know it's a bad match up for my opponent?
Who's 'fault' is it? Mine, theirs, or the game's?
For example on paper, Stormcast Decimators are amazing against units.
But in practice, Retributors - despite being equally costed in every comp system I've looked at - are a better 'overall' choice unless your opponent has taken a lot of 'horde' type units.
Yes, points or whatever give you a framework. But you still have to play the game to figure out what works and what doesn't, and this is true of *any* system. It's just that AoS doesn't give you the initial framework.
If points were the be all and end all of balance, there would be no need for discussion of pros and cons of army list X if it's the same points as army list Y.
Kilkrazy wrote: The purpose of a tank hunting force is to hunt tanks. If it isn't powerful against a tank force there is a basic problem in the rules. It shouldn't be a fair match.
Sorry, wasn't clear - how am I to know it's a bad match up for my opponent?
Because it's a tailored list heavily focused on destroying specifically your enemies units, that your enemy doesn't have a counter to. It's possible to land in that situation inadvertantly, however. For instance, in Bolt Action (and modern warfare in general) flamethrowers are utterly devastating against infantry, but without playing you might not realise how devastating it is (vehicle mounted flamethrowers are the only thing I've seen comp'd out of Bolt Action). Even without any experience of the rules, a read-through will give you some idea that it'll be good against infantry though, so it's fairly obvious that a 1000pt flamethrower-heavy list will fare pretty well against a 1000pt infantry-heavy list.
Yes, points or whatever give you a framework. But you still have to play the game to figure out what works and what doesn't, and this is true of *any* system. It's just that AoS doesn't give you the initial framework.
If points were the be all and end all of balance, there would be no need for discussion of pros and cons of army list X if it's the same points as army list Y.
Of course, points are never going to be perfect; they can't reflect things like terrain advantages, turn order, dice rolling, poor decisions, but they at least get you into the same ball park as the opposing side.
Like I said, 1000pt of tank hunters is going to be fairer against 1000pts of tanks than a 1500pt tank hunter list would be. Points at least give you the starting point to tailor form. With no understanding of the rules, yet grasping that tank hunters are designed to smash tanks, you stand a pretty good chance on a first attempt fielding something like 900pts of tank hunters against 1000pts of tanks. There's absolutely no way you can get as close as that on a first attempt with AoS out of the box, except by blind luck. No?
No.
You are including an assessment of experience even when you say you aren't.
You're also stating that from reading a unit's rules, you can see on paper what a it's strengths/weaknesses are.
Yet you also say that with AoS that same process can't be done.
I am not disputing that the lack of a framework requires more play to gauge efficacy than with, but your assertion that it's essential to even start is demonstrably false.
No.
You are including an assessment of experience even when you say you aren't.
You're also stating that from reading a unit's rules, you can see on paper what a it's strengths/weaknesses are.
I'm pretty sure I'm saying the opposite. From reading the units rules you can get some incomplete idea of it's strengths. The only experience I've got is general understanding of the rock-paper-scissors nature of warfare. Field guns / Tank Hunters > Tanks > Infantry > Field Guns / Tank Hunters. I'm aware that the same is played out in Flames Of War, but that's it.
Yet you also say that with AoS that same process can't be done.
No, I'm saying the same process can be done, but with AoS you're an awful lot further back at a starting point; the rules don't help you land in the same ballpark.
I am not disputing that the lack of a framework requires more play to gauge efficacy than with, but your assertion that it's essential to even start is demonstrably false.
I'm not saying it's essential. I'm saying it makes it an awful lot easier, and the difference might be the difference between a player sticking it out or getting bored and moving on. My super-casual gaming buddies would never waste time on it.
I think the disconnect is that there are 2 camps of people; those invested in GW/Fantasy who feel the effort is justified, and those that just want a game to play that don't feel the effort is justified. I can certainly understand that.
I'm very much in the 'just want to play a game without too much effort (because the baby wakes up every 3 hours needing fed)' camp. As are, I suspect, most of the new recruits GW is hoping to attract.
Herzlos wrote: My super-casual gaming buddies would never waste time on it.
We're obviously at loggerheads here, so continuing is pointless.
What I would say is that AoS has allowed me to become 'super casual' in our approach to playing, and IMO your group are losing out.
Your opinion is obviously very different.
My opinion, of course, is that we're not losing out at all. Because we're spending our gaming time playing other games (Cutthroat Caverns, Risk, Exploding Kittens, Munchkin, LOTR Board Games, X-WIng), and I get to paint my own stuff for fun
I regard casualness as being the effort required to play, not the style in which we play. I favour low-effort tournament games over high-effort "casual" games.
Table wrote: Im far to lazy to dig through my post history, but if you want to be my guest.
It is your responsibility to back up your claims. What you've described does happen in markets but this thread is not an example of it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Has anyone played multiplayer games of AoS yet?
The format of it is certainly open to it, and the latest campaign book has a four player Battleplan in it.
Thats the rub isnt it. As I have stated, I dont have the desire to sift through 30 + threads to prove a point. A point, that I could care less if you think it to be true or false. If you are interested enough, look through my post history, youll find the thread. The sad part of it all is this thread has once again degenerated into the typical school yard bollocks this sub forum is known for.
Table wrote: Im far to lazy to dig through my post history, but if you want to be my guest.
It is your responsibility to back up your claims. What you've described does happen in markets but this thread is not an example of it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Has anyone played multiplayer games of AoS yet?
The format of it is certainly open to it, and the latest campaign book has a four player Battleplan in it.
Thats the rub isnt it. As I have stated, I dont have the desire to sift through 30 + threads to prove a point. A point, that I could care less if you think it to be true or false. If you are interested enough, look through my post history, youll find the thread. The sad part of it all is this thread has once again degenerated into the typical school yard bollocks this sub forum is known for.
Wait, so it's tough to look through the 35 posts you've made? That's ok, I'll do it for you. Oh, look. 2 threads on the top page, where you call other posters with 10 times the posts you have, and who joined these forums before you did, shills. It also seems like you're the only person who called them that, and it seems like the didn't actually stop posting. They just ignored you. And they should have. Because you're ignorant, and paranoid. Maybe take some time away from the computer.
Darn. Still, doesn't make me the idiot that makes claims then when other people find the evidence that points to them in their own words starts claiming 'venom', 'bastard', 'manchildren' and 'fanscrub'.
At least have the stones to stand by your own words.
Table wrote: Im far to lazy to dig through my post history, but if you want to be my guest. Its funny that people are so shocked that these kind of things happen. Its pretty common by now and (sadly) a standard. As I said, happens in game forums all the time. I dont know if Matt is a shill, im leaning in that direction thanks to Manchus post. Im not attacking him, just questioning the motives for this thread, and it seems im not alone. But go ahead and make comments about paranoia and tin foil hats, if that is going to make you feel warm inside. Perhaps Matt himself would like to comment, perhaps hes not a shill and above it. I really dont know. I can say this thread is pretty useless at this point.
Seeing as you only had 41 posts, I figured I'd do the legwork myself. I'm mean, this is a pretty serious accusation, so if there is proof, it's worth exposing. As near as I can tell, you accuse Bitethythumb of being a planttwice - but no evidence is ever presented, no wrong doing is ever admitted, and Bitethythumb never stopped posting. So, unless you were speaking of a different poster or a different situation, I'm going to label this accusation as "baseless".
Table wrote: Its even worse when they try to manipulate forum readers for said company. Im not saying he is or isnt. Manchu seems to think so
No no no no no ... Manchu thinks that claim is laughable/miserable:
Manchu wrote: The idea that this guy is trying to trick anyone into liking AoS is equally laughable and miserable.
Table wrote: I dont know if Matt is a shill, im leaning in that direction thanks to Manchus post.
That's an odd conclusion. Matt posted that he sells AoS stuff. But his blogs and the content he posts here do not link to any store or suggest that you contact him to buy anything. If posting on a forum about how much you like a game, giving interesting suggestions about how to make it even more fun, and providing pics of well painted models and scenery is shilling for a company then I guess I would welcome more shills to post around here.
NAVARRO wrote: Why is so hard to conceive that some of us just like AoS? Why do people need to flood the forum with conspiracy theories and ridiculous accusations, I mean the amount of posts regarding these silly things and boring spammed to exhaustion jokes is just too much on these topics.
Its not even contradictory arguments most of the cases ( bar some exceptions) just childish jokes...AHAH we get the jokes very funny... repeat it 100 times in every AoS thread and your just a troll.
The group of people on Dakka that makes it their mission to gak on what other people like, is certainly doing their best to push people that enjoy X game to other sites like Facebook groups or dedicated blogs.
I know I want to spend my free hobby time enjoying it with others who like the same, not waste time reading how much some other people dislike what I enjoy.
I wonder how prevalent this type of behaviour is in the Infinity, Malifaux or other parts of forum compared to the GW related games.
Or maybe, just maybe, those people are just answering questions and claims that deserve a discussion. There was a thread asking about AoS rules quality, what do you expect, 100% answers saying top notch? There's no mission only discussion that apparently for some only goes right when it goes positive.
I, for example, don't give two gaks about whether you like AoS or not, it's your time, your money and your fun and by no means I want to make you hate it or sth, wish you many fun games whatever you play etc etc. I only discuss claims like AoS is special, genius, balanced, tactical and other nonsensical praises that supporters sing. It's ok to like something bad or flawed, almost everyone does.
What if AoS really was a bad game that most people will have trouble with, wouldn't the discussion forum be a place to to find out about it before you spend money? I'm sorry that AoS is not liked but I like to find no bs discussion when I search for information about the product, not echo chamber so that people who like it feel cosy and comfortable. In short, it's good that it's so bad here.
As for other games and haters, there are two possibilities
- the underground network of vicious people chose GW sections of forums at random as a place to spew venom and bile
- GW games are so bad and low quality that many people complain about it
NAVARRO wrote: Why is so hard to conceive that some of us just like AoS? Why do people need to flood the forum with conspiracy theories and ridiculous accusations, I mean the amount of posts regarding these silly things and boring spammed to exhaustion jokes is just too much on these topics.
Its not even contradictory arguments most of the cases ( bar some exceptions) just childish jokes...AHAH we get the jokes very funny... repeat it 100 times in every AoS thread and your just a troll.
The group of people on Dakka that makes it their mission to gak on what other people like, is certainly doing their best to push people that enjoy X game to other sites like Facebook groups or dedicated blogs.
I know I want to spend my free hobby time enjoying it with others who like the same, not waste time reading how much some other people dislike what I enjoy.
I wonder how prevalent this type of behaviour is in the Infinity, Malifaux or other parts of forum compared to the GW related games.
Or maybe, just maybe, those people are just answering questions and claims that deserve a discussion. There was a thread asking about AoS rules quality, what do you expect, 100% answers saying top notch? There's no mission only discussion that apparently for some only goes right when it goes positive.
I, for example, don't give two gaks about whether you like AoS or not, it's your time, your money and your fun and by no means I want to make you hate it or sth, wish you many fun games whatever you play etc etc. I only discuss claims like AoS is special, genius, balanced, tactical and other nonsensical praises that supporters sing. It's ok to like something bad or flawed, almost everyone does.
What if AoS really was a bad game that most people will have trouble with, wouldn't the discussion forum be a place to to find out about it before you spend money? I'm sorry that AoS is not liked but I like to find no bs discussion when I search for information about the product, not echo chamber so that people who like it feel cosy and comfortable. In short, it's good that it's so bad here.
As for other games and haters, there are two possibilities
- the underground network of vicious people chose GW sections of forums at random as a place to spew venom and bile
- GW games are so bad and low quality that many people complain about it
Or maybe you read the topic and post 10 cool things you have been doing with AoS instead of this errr so so funny thing you posted.
1. Simultanously shoot and block with a bow
2. Move three times in a row
3. Field 20 bloodthirsters
4. Paint sigmarines in gold
5. Sponsor Jervis's new yacht
6. Excuse laziest rules writers in a world with your approval
7. Support the awful and arogant company
8. Hasten the axing of armies
9. Not know why you won or lost at all
10. Waste 100+ games you could have played for fun to write and test your own point system
You have issues with GW, cool! Create a topic of 100 things you hate about them instead of posting it over and over and over again on AoS topics.
Your not the one to enlighten us because most have made up their minds and moved accordingly, you should do the same, or not. Either way stay on topic.
Or maybe, just maybe, those people are just answering questions and claims that deserve a discussion. There was a thread asking about AoS rules quality, what do you expect, 100% answers saying top notch? There's no mission only discussion that apparently for some only goes right when it goes positive.
This is rich coming from you, the first person I ever put on my ignore list for your obsession with gakking up every halfway positive AoS thread with your unconscionable gakposting. If you limited your posts to "just answering questions and claims that deserve a discussion", then I'd say, yeah, your opinion is warranted - but you don't. Remember the thread called Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Chance (long!) where your first response was to quote the entire opening post and add "No"? Get off your high horse dude.
What if AoS really was a bad game that most people will have trouble with, wouldn't the discussion forum be a place to to find out about it before you spend money?
Personally, I'd like to see discussions between people who actively play a game and see what they like and don't like about it rather than discussions from people who actively play the game being told they are wrong by people who actively don't.
I'm sorry that AoS is not liked but I like to find no bs discussion when I search for information about the product, not echo chamber so that people who like it feel cosy and comfortable. In short, it's good that it's so bad here.
People who enjoy AoS and want to discuss it without every thread being derailed by hate filled trolls is not an echo chamber. And if it were, so what? It's not like one's enjoyment of things really needs to be constantly challenged. "You don't really enjoy this thing because it is designed for children" - oh, okay. I was wrong. Thanks for letting me know. It's a good thing this isn't an echo chamber, or I would have committed the unforgivable sin of enjoying something for the wrong reasons. Dodged that bullet...
The fact is, for the past year, AoS has been under near constant attack causing the majority of people who enjoy AoS to be extremely defensive about it. Where AoS is imperfect, they can't have an honest discussion about it because someone (usually you) leaps on the opportunity as a way to show that AoS is terrible. Frankly, if posters like you would dial the rhetoric back a bit (and things were improving for a while there), we'd be more than happy to admit the flaws that AoS has by ourselves. AoS is a fun game, but not without flaws, and until we can have THAT conversation without the trolls gakking up the discussion, we end up drawing lines in the sand between two groups "AoS optimists" and "AoS haters", and lose the chance to have any nuanced or reasonable discussion about the game's flaws. So in your efforts to prove what a horrible game AoS is, you actually make it impossible to have a constructive conversation about its flaws.
For what it's worth, the discussion I've seen here is just a reflection of what I've seen in the several FLGS I frequent:
1. Some people enthusiastically adopt it as they've been waiting for a new game for fantasy from GW with how stagnant 8th edition was.
2. Some gave it a look but moved on to other games, such as Kings of War, Frostgrave, or another genre entirely.
3. Some have a shrug / "meh" response, having already moved onto other games, and don't give it a look.
4. Some are actively hostile towards it whenever it comes up.
I think the only truly unhelpful position to be in is the last, but there's certainly place for reasonable discussion (i.e. not just rainbows and sunshine ). But, excessively raining on the AoS parade isn't fun, either!
Personally, I'm happy to scheme for KoW (finally got my army list set this week, thanks Salvage!) and spend my "fantasy braincells" doing that . I'd rather see this section embrace the good of AoS than always spiral into negativity.
But I think the defensiveness is the other side of the coin, and until people can more readily admit some of the problems, there will likely continue to be a vociferous backlash against the game and those pushing it. It has some pretty huge flaws, and I'm really interested in reading posts by Mongoose Matt or others trying to work through / around them. But if you deny them entirely, it's hard to take the discussion seriously and it will be harder to fend off the "haters" from dominating discussion.
My little list of suggestions (nothing new for most of you, I know - just throwing some things I'm onto)
1. Build a terrain piece (or table) modeled after some of the bombastic scenes/views in AoS. For example – after a long, unsuccessful siege Khorne himself appeared and slammed a gigantic skull in the middle of the defiant city obliterating everything around it. Build a giant skull filled with blood, throw it in the middle, and play knowing that the Lord of Blood himself SLAMMED that goddamned huge thing there. Another one would be the bridge of chained birds with the orbiting moon around it – it is very easy to come up with a scenario for this.
2. Play a kill team scenario. There are many options out there. Mine is based on the 4th edition 40k kill team. Things like:
- Skaven ninja team infiltrating the fortress of Sigmar (we have a mention of this in the first book)
- Stormcast elite team attacking a bloodbound camp in the night etc.
Keep the "good guys" small in number and throw in a mechanic for the "bad guys" to make them dumb and uncoordinated when isolated from one another. Commandos style.
3. Try a game where you keep in the old WHFB formations using the new rules. See how it goes.
4. Find out Island of blood while it is still out there – the skaven gnaw at the roots of all the realms – you can literally slap them anywhere and they’ll fit right in the context. You can use the elves as the last remnants of their race, get a character or two from another faction and lead them on a rescue-survival mission. Ok, I needed a filler entry– guilty about this
A few ideas I have had for my AoS and a few of my favorite things to do in AoS are
1. Recreate an up to date version of mordheim using warscrolls
2. Tabletop Vermintide anyone? 3. Those battleplans and times of war easily make the game super fun
4. Conversions, conversions, conversions! With armies consisting of things like VC and Skaven i have been able to combined bits to keep themes between two armies and make some delicious looking models.
5. With so few named characters each army has more of a personal feel to it and give each game very nice thematic feels
6. Finally for my list is the people playing AoS, some of the best who are not playing to break the game but playing to have fun ass games
Kilkrazy wrote: The purpose of a tank hunting force is to hunt tanks. If it isn't powerful against a tank force there is a basic problem in the rules. It shouldn't be a fair match.
Sorry, wasn't clear - how am I to know it's a bad match up for my opponent?
Who's 'fault' is it? Mine, theirs, or the game's?
For example on paper, Stormcast Decimators are amazing against units.
But in practice, Retributors - despite being equally costed in every comp system I've looked at - are a better 'overall' choice unless your opponent has taken a lot of 'horde' type units.
Yes, points or whatever give you a framework. But you still have to play the game to figure out what works and what doesn't, and this is true of *any* system. It's just that AoS doesn't give you the initial framework.
If points were the be all and end all of balance, there would be no need for discussion of pros and cons of army list X if it's the same points as army list Y.
It's an interesting question and bears some thinking about.
It is clearly inherent in the nature of war games that the strength of the units must encoded in the game, since otherwise it would be impossible to play. For instance, if a game has shooting, then weapons have to have ranges, and it is obvious that a longer ranged weapon is better than a shorter ranged one, all other things being equal, a unit with long ranges weapons is stronger. How much stronger would depend on various factors, such as table size and movement rates relative to weapon ranges.
It follows that it should be possible to read the rules and form an opinion of the relative strengths of units by comparing their characteristics. Of course the player's ability to interpret the rules depends on experience of reading rules and the complexity of the rules he is reading.
Judging the strength of units just by playing in fact is probably the worst way to do it, because it lays the player open to all the cognitive biases and failures of statistical sample size, so he is likely to come to an incorrect conclusion based purely on that limited and flawed information.
It follows then that actually AoS does provide the game balance information but it is in a very diffuse format, i.e. the different stats and rules on the war scrolls. It's probably impossible to work out fair balance by playing the game, because there are simply too many possible combinations of units, but it should be possible to analyse them mathematically.
NAVARRO wrote: Why is so hard to conceive that some of us just like AoS? Why do people need to flood the forum with conspiracy theories and ridiculous accusations, I mean the amount of posts regarding these silly things and boring spammed to exhaustion jokes is just too much on these topics.
Its not even contradictory arguments most of the cases ( bar some exceptions) just childish jokes...AHAH we get the jokes very funny... repeat it 100 times in every AoS thread and your just a troll.
The group of people on Dakka that makes it their mission to gak on what other people like, is certainly doing their best to push people that enjoy X game to other sites like Facebook groups or dedicated blogs.
I know I want to spend my free hobby time enjoying it with others who like the same, not waste time reading how much some other people dislike what I enjoy.
I wonder how prevalent this type of behaviour is in the Infinity, Malifaux or other parts of forum compared to the GW related games.
Or maybe, just maybe, those people are just answering questions and claims that deserve a discussion. There was a thread asking about AoS rules quality, what do you expect, 100% answers saying top notch? There's no mission only discussion that apparently for some only goes right when it goes positive.
I, for example, don't give two gaks about whether you like AoS or not, it's your time, your money and your fun and by no means I want to make you hate it or sth, wish you many fun games whatever you play etc etc. I only discuss claims like AoS is special, genius, balanced, tactical and other nonsensical praises that supporters sing. It's ok to like something bad or flawed, almost everyone does.
What if AoS really was a bad game that most people will have trouble with, wouldn't the discussion forum be a place to to find out about it before you spend money? I'm sorry that AoS is not liked but I like to find no bs discussion when I search for information about the product, not echo chamber so that people who like it feel cosy and comfortable. In short, it's good that it's so bad here.
As for other games and haters, there are two possibilities
- the underground network of vicious people chose GW sections of forums at random as a place to spew venom and bile
- GW games are so bad and low quality that many people complain about it
Or maybe you read the topic and post 10 cool things you have been doing with AoS instead of this errr so so funny thing you posted.
1. Simultanously shoot and block with a bow
2. Move three times in a row
3. Field 20 bloodthirsters
4. Paint sigmarines in gold
5. Sponsor Jervis's new yacht
6. Excuse laziest rules writers in a world with your approval
7. Support the awful and arogant company
8. Hasten the axing of armies
9. Not know why you won or lost at all
10. Waste 100+ games you could have played for fun to write and test your own point system
You have issues with GW, cool! Create a topic of 100 things you hate about them instead of posting it over and over and over again on AoS topics.
Your not the one to enlighten us because most have made up their minds and moved accordingly, you should do the same, or not. Either way stay on topic.
I won't do this in any thread at this point, it's no accident that it was posted here, a good counterargument to the OP in tone imo heh.
Anyway I was adressing the idea of "people on a mission to gak on what people like" which is bs, I don't believe anyone here is driven by sth like that.
2. Play a kill team scenario. There are many options out there. Mine is based on the 4th edition 40k kill team. Things like:
Exalt not good enough for this. Genius. Just curious, what mechanic have you been using for Grunt detection?
Yes, without having an initiative value, the klaxon counters are not usable out of the box . In short, I had a stroll through the “basic infantry” (grunts) warscrolls for lizardmen and daemons and tried to isolate what marks certain unit as fast and aware. For the daemons scrolls, the tendency is to have a better movement value the higher your initiative should be. Another criteria could be the number of attacks and to hit values, but the latter is almost uniformly 4+ and the former varies wildly and does not exactly corresponds to speed/awareness. The movement value is kind of ok until you see the 16” movement of the screamers and seekers… but then these are units that fly (or gallop around) and have an overview of the battlefield so I judged this should be ok. To compensate I added a little house rule – if most (at least half) of the kill team models are in terrain they can’t be seen by such “long range” detectors . So there you have it:
-4/5/6 for plaguebearers/bloodletters/daemonettes which is not that much different than the usual 3/4/5 in 40k provided that the assault and move distance in AoS is greater
-Flying and fast units get their full movement as range, but cannot see at all in terrain (as they fly over the woods or gallop too fast to discern any movement).
Of course there’s certainly more than one way to do it – you can assign arbitrary values to each unit depending on personal preference or derive a rule from another statistic altogether. This is just my way It’s the idea for kill-team that is important – the implementation, as everything in AoS is mutable…
Or maybe, just maybe, those people are just answering questions and claims that deserve a discussion. There was a thread asking about AoS rules quality, what do you expect, 100% answers saying top notch? There's no mission only discussion that apparently for some only goes right when it goes positive.
This is rich coming from you, the first person I ever put on my ignore list for your obsession with gakking up every halfway positive AoS thread with your unconscionable gakposting. If you limited your posts to "just answering questions and claims that deserve a discussion", then I'd say, yeah, your opinion is warranted - but you don't. Remember the thread called Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Chance (long!) where your first response was to quote the entire opening post and add "No"? Get off your high horse dude.
Yeah it's no accident there either, it's rare to see a rant you disagree with to the point that a "no" sums it up perfectly. I also elaborate and discuss a lot later in that thread so in the end it's exactly about discussing claims you disagree with, you can question the form but not the principle. That you can pick a post out of context of the entire discussion that was not constructive means nothing, nice try.
What if AoS really was a bad game that most people will have trouble with, wouldn't the discussion forum be a place to to find out about it before you spend money?
Personally, I'd like to see discussions between people who actively play a game and see what they like and don't like about it rather than discussions from people who actively play the game being told they are wrong by people who actively don't.
I'm sorry that AoS is not liked but I like to find no bs discussion when I search for information about the product, not echo chamber so that people who like it feel cosy and comfortable. In short, it's good that it's so bad here.
People who enjoy AoS and want to discuss it without every thread being derailed by hate filled trolls is not an echo chamber. And if it were, so what? It's not like one's enjoyment of things really needs to be constantly challenged. "You don't really enjoy this thing because it is designed for children" - oh, okay. I was wrong. Thanks for letting me know. It's a good thing this isn't an echo chamber, or I would have committed the unforgivable sin of enjoying something for the wrong reasons. Dodged that bullet...
The fact is, for the past year, AoS has been under near constant attack causing the majority of people who enjoy AoS to be extremely defensive about it. Where AoS is imperfect, they can't have an honest discussion about it because someone (usually you) leaps on the opportunity as a way to show that AoS is terrible. Frankly, if posters like you would dial the rhetoric back a bit (and things were improving for a while there), we'd be more than happy to admit the flaws that AoS has by ourselves. AoS is a fun game, but not without flaws, and until we can have THAT conversation without the trolls gakking up the discussion, we end up drawing lines in the sand between two groups "AoS optimists" and "AoS haters", and lose the chance to have any nuanced or reasonable discussion about the game's flaws. So in your efforts to prove what a horrible game AoS is, you actually make it impossible to have a constructive conversation about its flaws.
Hate filled trolls lol. "You don't really enjoy this thing because it's made for children", you just made that up, no surprise here. "You don't really enjoy that", find me a single post starting like that and implying someone should stop having fun. And if someone thinks that it's for children and posts that opinion then being hurt by it is your problem and not of said poster, it's not a personal insult or racial abuse or sth ffs.
Albo it's not my fault that after a year, it's still a terrible game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RiTides wrote: For what it's worth, the discussion I've seen here is just a reflection of what I've seen in the several FLGS I frequent:
1. Some people enthusiastically adopt it as they've been waiting for a new game for fantasy from GW with how stagnant 8th edition was.
2. Some gave it a look but moved on to other games, such as Kings of War, Frostgrave, or another genre entirely.
3. Some have a shrug / "meh" response, having already moved onto other games, and don't give it a look.
4. Some are actively hostile towards it whenever it comes up.
I think the only truly unhelpful position to be in is the last, but there's certainly place for reasonable discussion (i.e. not just rainbows and sunshine ). But, excessively raining on the AoS parade isn't fun, either!
Personally, I'm happy to scheme for KoW (finally got my army list set this week, thanks Salvage!) and spend my "fantasy braincells" doing that . I'd rather see this section embrace the good of AoS than always spiral into negativity.
But I think the defensiveness is the other side of the coin, and until people can more readily admit some of the problems, there will likely continue to be a vociferous backlash against the game and those pushing it. It has some pretty huge flaws, and I'm really interested in reading posts by Mongoose Matt or others trying to work through / around them. But if you deny them entirely, it's hard to take the discussion seriously and it will be harder to fend off the "haters" from dominating discussion.
That's a great post.
I was writing a long and beautiful post that would make people cry and appreciate us haters more, deep down being nice and all but it got lost along with battery power so I will just adress the unhelpful bit.
Btw as proud as I am about being unable to find a more obnoxious detractor in the section, I don't think I really hate Age of Sigmar. I don't think I'm really even hostile towards it, may sure look like hostility ofc but I don't feel like that and rather find it funny and ridiculous. I am grateful to GW for killing whfb instead of, for example, introducing sigmarines farted out of the Stormcloud (tm) right over Altdorf. Not only that, I tried to get into it a few times and it's wasn't rules or balance that stopped me but the design of a basic sigmarine which puts me off the entire universe in a second. If it wasn't for that I'd probably play a game here or there, it wouldn't change the fact that it's simple and shallow but Heroes of Might and Magic is simple and shallow as well (and the battle part is very similar to AoSbtw) and I sometimes play it for weeks. Can you be a hater if you actively try to get into the thing you apparently hate and let it grow on you? Also can I really intend to insult people with my comments about rules if I play similar things?
Seriously I get so much flak around for watching Walking Dead, from harsh critique to smartass jabs and never took that as an insult, it's about entertainment and people have opinions, show being braindead doesn't make me so (at least not instantly heh). I appreciate you putting haters in quotation mark as it's a term born of overreaction and overly delicate sensibilities imo, I'm not a super tough man either but c'mon.
Anyway, staying with the nomenclature, I'd say that there are few people here who are haters in reverse, shamelessly posting about their balanced AoS games without a slightest attempt at explaining such a miracle and from what I've seen, it might take a hater to call them on that. It's also not " a reaction to all the hate" as they put it, evidence being all the hurray threads created over the year. In my opinion it's all about balance (heh), the basis of all merit in the forum so I disagree about haters being unhelpful. You even say something along those lines (I think?), that the blind positivity warrants such reactions so maybe you lack a cathegory there, hostile but still reasonable and mostly right ie myself heh.
Anyway I for example came here for a while only, drawn by the axing of TK range and unnecessarily got into a few discussions, too many people are wrong on the internet. Soon will be gone and wish you nicer haters to guard substantivity of the forum heh.
It follows then that actually AoS does provide the game balance information but it is in a very diffuse format, i.e. the different stats and rules on the war scrolls. It's probably impossible to work out fair balance by playing the game, because there are simply too many possible combinations of units, but it should be possible to analyse them mathematically.
I find AoS perfectly suited to assess strengths and weaknesses. Warscrolls being available for free allows you to take a look at absolutely every unit in the game. I remember my 40k games back in the days where I had to ask my opponent what are the stats and rules of units he would play. Because you don't always have all army books, you do rely on playing the game to understand its balance. In AoS I'm pretty sure I've read 90% of all warscrolls, many more than once, I'm fairly confident I can assess the balance of a game just by looking at the army lists.
Obviously the war scrolls are available free, which is good. Having to check through all the different stats for each unit, plus their special rules, and mentally comparing these with all the stats for all the other units, is rather time-consuming. Some games use simple codes to indicate the capabilities of units, which I find easier to cope with.
I've decided that I'm going to build Island of Blood and just try some test games with "what's in the box" and see what the balance is like.
So for those who feel like you're pissing into the wind with positive posts, some of us are listening and though I very much dislike what GW have done with AoS I have been persuaded into trying it out by you guys.
Da Boss wrote: I've decided that I'm going to build Island of Blood and just try some test games with "what's in the box" and see what the balance is like.
So for those who feel like you're pissing into the wind with positive posts, some of us are listening and though I very much dislike what GW have done with AoS I have been persuaded into trying it out by you guys.
It can't hurt especially if you already have the box or intend to use it for KoW or FB anyway. If you have the time it's definitely better to try it out and then decide you don't like it even more
Da Boss wrote: I've decided that I'm going to build Island of Blood and just try some test games with "what's in the box" and see what the balance is like.
So for those who feel like you're pissing into the wind with positive posts, some of us are listening and though I very much dislike what GW have done with AoS I have been persuaded into trying it out by you guys.
That's a great idea. I'd love to hear your feedback and even a little bit of battle report on this. I'll be waiting!
Da Boss wrote: I've decided that I'm going to build Island of Blood and just try some test games with "what's in the box" and see what the balance is like.
Even if you don't like AoS, IoB is still a great buy.
Heh, well I'll have to find someone to play with for a battle report, and I'll be a while painting it up. But I will try to do so.
Yeah, IoB is a lovely set. There's a second one in the shop and I'm resisting the urge to pick it up as well. Too many other expenses right now to be splurging on that stuff!
*Clicks the link*
