So as of late I've given warmachine a little love and watched some battle reports and I suddenly realized that it roughly is the same as AOS in some ways. The basics are cast spells in a hero phase, move your guys, get into combat with the enemy. (Yes I realize this is the basis of most war games) but when I went through and watched some reviews of AOS all anyone every talked about was how simple AOS had become. Yet this is basically the same concept between the two games but AOS gets so much hate? Why is that? Fill me in if I'm missing anything about warmachine that could change my opinion because I'm a little jaded against it.
I've been in lurking mode for the past month, but I'll come out of retirement for a chance to bad mouth Warmachine...
Nah, I'm not going to do that. It's basically just a case of confirmation bias. When you like something, you find reasons to like it more. When you dislike something, you find reasons to dislike it more. Warmachine is a fairly stable place right now where the fanbase is relatively content with the game, whereas Age of Sigmar represented a rather significant upheaval for Warhammer Fantasy fans, so it's easy to see where the bias comes from and why it plays out how it does.
I also think Warmachine has, somehow, become the standard Anti-AoS, with its highly competitive play and balanced point system (I resisted the urge to put that in sarcasti-quotes), it represents what one segment of the population wants out of miniature games, and I think AoS's loss of those elements maybe made them hug Warmachine just a little bit tighter as a result. In my case, Warmachine, being the Anti-AoS, came to represent everything I hated about competition and balance, and I turned against it pretty strongly.
I was reading an article that said that if you ever wanted to know what group another group hates the most, don't look towards the groups that are most different - look towards the groups that are the most similar. Perhaps it is that miniature gamers of one type just hate miniature gamers of another type, despite both being quite similar in most, but not all, aspects.
Warmachine and AoS have many similalrities, but they have also got some pretty important differences.
Points balance is obvious, but Warmachine also has some pretty "gamey" rules designed to make playing the game easy, which ignore the models and abstract them. AoS went the other way, making the models important and doing away with abstraction (measuring ranges from the models themselves rather than bases for example).
AoS is a bit like a mix of Kings of War and Warmachine without points and with some odd choices in rules design, to me.
Abstracting the models position to a 'volume of space' is a pretty fair way of defining issues like line of sight, and warmachine is far from the only game that does it this way. andTo be fair, aos has some pretty 'gamey' features too... It's homeopathic warmachine in a lot of ways since it tries to be combo and synergy based as well. Gamey rules abound though,
Orbiting enemy models.
The inverse-t formation.
Shooting in melee.
Gamey zone of controls for models.
Always,wounding on a set value, regardless of whether it's a zombie or a dragon...
Folks aren't really having a go at Aos for being 'simple'. It's more nuking the old world, and things like utterly changing the game in terms of direction and alIenating and deliberately discarding the old fanbase. Lack of points isn't necessarily that big of a deal, and it gets far more hate than it deserves, for there are legitimate grounds for complaints in how Aos is quite unfriendly towards things like pick up games and tournaments, both of which have good value to the community,
For the record, I think Warmachine is a very good ruleset - I've got three armies for the system. The main reason I don't play any more is because my trollbloods fell apart in transit despite extensive pinning and greenstuffing, and their paintjobs got chipped the crap despite varnish.
I just don't have the heart to reassemble them and repaint them, so I've barely opened the case for like 4 years.
But the rules for the game are great, and I full agree that abstracting those elements makes sense. I wish AoS did that!
Warmachine is designed to be a full-on competitive fight.
No Quarter, as it were. Both players are aware their opponent is going to try and kerbstomp them so hard even their grandkids will need dentures, so that's the atmosphere it's going for. If any miniature game could be made into a televised sport, it'd probably be Warmachine.
It does have its' faults - due to the combative nature and drive for efficiency/synergy netlisting is A Thing, and the annual Steamroller pack (Official PP tournament) scenarios - whilst challenging - are pretty much just multiple variations on Unreal Tournament game modes.
But if you're more into the 'war' aspect of wargaming, it's probably a very good shout.
AoS is completely the opposite. It's a game where - on the published info at least - you can infer that GW aren't interested in competition, and instead want people to focus on enjoying the game as an experience or a story.
GW performed a total compositionectomy, so if 'official competitive' is your thing, it won't even know where to start looking for the itch. The rules aren't highly detailed or complex - you could probably memorise them inside 10 minutes - so again, if you like complexity it might not be for you.
AoS really & truly shines if you are playing a scenario/objective-based game without comp against a like-minded opponent. If your main gaming opportunity is PUGs against strangers.. unlikely to work without a few games first.
The main cause of the AoS hate is two-fold. Maybe 3. It was just two to begin with though.
1) GW replaced Warhammer Fantasy Battle with a game that was about as different as you could get and still be called a wargame, that got rid of a number of sacred cows (rank & file, no shooting in combat, army lists, etc.) when all people wanted was a 9th edition WFB that was... better? (Opinion appears quite divided on what that would have meant).
2) Alongside blowing up the game, GW also blew up the setting. Literally. The newer setting is - on current evidence - not so gritty or focussed on the little guy and is quite high magic. For people who grew up with it, that's a big change.
3) The minis for AoS definitely have a different aesthetic to WFB, and the prices are generally higher per model for the brand new AoS stuff than the legacy repacks.
Warmachine and AoS might appear superficially similar, but when you look a little deeper they are VERY different games.
For one thing with a well balanced point system and tourney support Warmachine can be played as a VERY competitive game while the entire design philosophy behind AoS is to roll dice and laugh about it.
I think you're a little off suggesting that Warmachine is about 'casting spells in a hero phase, moving your guys, get into combat with the enemy'. For one it doesn't actually use 'phases' like GW games, you pick a model, do everything with that model, then move onto the next. That makes unit activation critically important at times so you can do things like debuff an enemy, clear a charge lane, and then attack your enemy's caster in the right order.
There is much less emphasis on simply killing your opponent's troops and a lot more on controlling the board.
Why AoS gets so much hate is easy, as people have said they killed WHFB in order to create it. I know I'm still jaded about that. Moving beyond that though, I still have little or no interest in it (wouldn't say hate) because it is not easily adaptable to pick up games with strangers. With Warmachine I can ask my opponent '35 or 50 points?' and we can start setting up, AoS requires you to discuss a fair match up when two people can have totally different ideas about how strong their units are. In the club environment that's prevalent in the UK this probably isn't a big deal. In the US and here in Australia most games seem to be pick up games at FLGSs.
While I greatly dislike both of them, I certainly hate AoS more, but the similarity between the 2 I just dont see, there is no "hero" phase in warmachine, the warcaster acts when he acts, not a set phase for just him, the synergies in the game are IMO much better thought out and the interactions between rules, units, models, etc appear to be much better conceived, warmachine also seems to have a much better ruleset in terms of answering questions about how the game even plays. While I firmly believe that warmachine is the far superior game, I wouldnt touch it with a ten foot pole wearing rubber gloves. I will play AoS with my son and his friends. AoS is not more "story" or "scenario" driven than warmachine. When you take base set and compare base set, the value is also weighted in warmachines favor. While I have a very low opinion of the fluff of warmachine, it is coherent, semi believable, and just as prone to story oriented games as AoS and in many ways is superior even in that. The old Mark 1 set even had campaign play firmly in the books. PP is also much better at supporting communities of gamers and events *not just tournements* than GW.
Well not everything I typed was meant to be literal, but reguardless I appreciate the enlightenment. I'm still learning a lot about both games so any bits of information along the way I can pick up is appreciated.
I'd say the biggest difference in the two are the communities and the fans of either game and what they want out of a game.
I played warmachine back in the day, still own my cryx, but one thing that pushed me out was that the warmachine community ... at least where I am ... was never interested in campaigns or anything that was not related to a tournament or tournament-league.
My warhammer community was also a lot like that until 8th came out.
If the community supported more non tournament events for Warmachine and focused more on narrative or kingdom building, I may give it another look but until then for me thats kind of pointless where I am because the player base is not interested in those type of games at all.
auticus wrote: I'd say the biggest difference in the two are the communities and the fans of either game and what they want out of a game.
I played warmachine back in the day, still own my cryx, but one thing that pushed me out was that the warmachine community ... at least where I am ... was never interested in campaigns or anything that was not related to a tournament or tournament-league.
My warhammer community was also a lot like that until 8th came out.
If the community supported more non tournament events for Warmachine and focused more on narrative or kingdom building, I may give it another look but until then for me thats kind of pointless where I am because the player base is not interested in those type of games at all.
This was where I was at with Warmachine when I quit. I wanted to play at smaller point sizes for a variety of reasons. I was a returning player after a decade and wasn't familiar with the game, I had fewer models to choose from, liked games that could be played in an hour (especially since victory in Warmachine is often decided before you move your first unit), and so on - but I ended up playing the same two guys over and over again because the majority of the group wouldn't play anything but 50 pt Steamroller tournament games. Variety is the spice of life, and Warmachine is decidedly not spicy.
Ouch, do you really want to make a topic with "Warmachine vs Age of Sigmar" as a title?
To me, comparing these two games is like comparing apples to pears. Sure, they're both fruits and grow on trees, but they're not really the same things.
Most of the "hate" with AoS mainly comes from the players feeling betrayed by the sudden killing of WFB and replacement of rules/background/miniatures that felt too different to what they have known. If Privateer Press did a new game called Era of Toruk that totally replaced Warmachine with rules completely different and seeing the destruction of Cygnar and Khador as factions but seeing new ones like Toruk's Minions and Privateer Rebel Alliance gathering the survivors trying to fight the new Undead Dominion, with total disappearance of well known characters because they're finally dead*....I believe there would be quite a fair number of people not being happy about this at all. And some who will be very glad to have something different and to their taste.
*Please note that's a total make up. Privateer Press didn't do that, to my knowledge. For now.
Sarouan wrote: Ouch, do you really want to make a topic with "Warmachine vs Age of Sigmar" as a title?
To me, comparing these two games is like comparing apples to pears. Sure, they're both fruits and grow on trees, but they're not really the same things.
Most of the "hate" with AoS mainly comes from the players feeling betrayed by the sudden killing of WFB and replacement of rules/background/miniatures that felt too different to what they have known.
Personally, that is just part of the reasons, and it's incomplete.
The new background is absolutely not at the level of the old one. People could argue that this is because AoS is new, but nobody ordered them to destroy the old world. I find the new setting bland, uninspiring, and victim of the same wow-ish clumsiness the new models suffer.
The models, I just find them horrible (with few exceptions), and I hate the scale creep. And these new masterpieces will lead to GW discontinue the minis of old. With other bland background changes. Mind it, I found horrible EoT too, especially the whole Malekith thing. The most heavy handed ret-con from GW, so far.
Finally, the 4 page rules of GW are just insulting, and there is where the comparison with Privateer just becomes embarrassing.
I cannot speak for other players but I have a laundry list for the reasons I think AoS is terrible, and this led me to just look into ebay for old minis if I need them, because I can't see myself give money to GW (for other games) anymore. Well, since the good stuff is often discontinued or is going to, this is just natural i suppose.
If Privateer Press did a new game called Era of Toruk that totally replaced Warmachine with rules completely different and seeing the destruction of Cygnar and Khador as factions but seeing new ones like Toruk's Minions and Privateer Rebel Alliance gathering the survivors trying to fight the new Undead Dominion, with total disappearance of well known characters because they're finally dead*....I believe there would be quite a fair number of people not being happy about this at all. And some who will be very glad to have something different and to their taste.
*Please note that's a total make up. Privateer Press didn't do that, to my knowledge. For now.
I find that Privateer is too eager into go on with the story, but I suppose this is what fans want. And this is something I never understood. I want a setting, when I want a story I go to read a book or watch a movie.
All I know is I would love to play AoS on some of the amazing Warmachine tables I have seen. Warmachine tables are great inspiration for AoS and I love browsing them on Google/Pinterest etc.
Warmachine sadly doesn't appeal to me miniatures wise as it all has this Final Fantasy aesthetic I am not a fan of.
In the end, we always come down to the same thing; it's mainly because AoS is coming AFTER Warhammer Fantasy Battle that it got so much "hate".
If WFB didn't exist and AoS was actually the first to come with exactly the same miniatures, I'm pretty sure the reactions wouldn't be the same. Of course, this game is not to the taste of everyone (and that's perfectly normal), but most of the hate come BECAUSE AoS technically replaced WFB in such a way that the "old guard" didn't accept it.
Which is the reason asking why AoS brings so much hate in comparison to Warmachine is a bit biased; of course it would, since Warmachine/Horde didn't get replaced by something that feel too different and totally not what a significant part of your oldest and most loyal fans would ever want.
Players who sticked with WFB all these years wanted to have a game that would still be WFB. Not AoS. Of course they would get angry like hell. That's a natural reaction when you feel betrayed (term may sound a bit too much, but that's exactly how some felt at that time - to the last day, most WFB players were sure GW would never do a thing like blowing up their favorite universe and litterally destroy the core rules they all loved - they thought they would have WFB 9th Edition, and AoS was not it - and never was intended to be).
That's where all the "hate" is coming from, mainly. IMHO, like always.
Kaiyanwang wrote: Malekith thing. The most heavy handed ret-con from GW, so far.
Finally, the 4 page rules of GW are just insulting, and there is where the comparison with Privateer just becomes embarrassing.
Just changing Malekith's name without a big change would have been weird.
As for the rules being 'insulting' - mind if I ask why?
But with the whole "he was king all along" they just s**t on all the High Elf /Dark Elf backstory of all these years. They perhaps thought this is was a brilliant coup de théâtre, but it was just lame and out of character. And one must thank the attention given I suppose, other characters just disappeared.
And for the AoS "rules" being insulting, well. GW creates system, GW does not balance system (and makes it high entry cost), system dies. GW scraps systems and instead of, you know, pay people to develop a functioning one, tells players that THEY have to do GW's job, so they can be busy selling players their overpriced miniatures.
GW sold us this "freedom" as something new, when it was something we were able to do since day one. I remember dueling with characters with my firends when we had not time for a full game. But when we wanted a fast 1k points, there was a (not fully functional) framework.
Really, this did not come through? Is marketing so strong?
Other companies spend time and pay people and listen to feedback to create a framework, and now I should be "grateful" to GW because they removed the point system. People keep telling me that such point system was faulty (see other games? 40k is unbalanced AH CHECKMATE)... when other companies demonstrate that it can be functional if effort is put in it.
And I should not feel insulted? Oh my.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sarouan wrote: In the end, we always come down to the same thing; it's mainly because AoS is coming AFTER Warhammer Fantasy Battle that it got so much "hate".
If WFB didn't exist and AoS was actually the first to come with exactly the same miniatures, I'm pretty sure the reactions wouldn't be the same. Of course, this game is not to the taste of everyone (and that's perfectly normal), but most of the hate come BECAUSE AoS technically replaced WFB in such a way that the "old guard" didn't accept it.
Which is the reason asking why AoS brings so much hate in comparison to Warmachine is a bit biased; of course it would, since Warmachine/Horde didn't get replaced by something that feel too different and totally not what a significant part of your oldest and most loyal fans would ever want.
Players who sticked with WFB all these years wanted to have a game that would still be WFB. Not AoS. Of course they would get angry like hell. That's a natural reaction when you feel betrayed (term may sound a bit too much, but that's exactly how some felt at that time - to the last day, most WFB players were sure GW would never do a thing like blowing up their favorite universe and litterally destroy the core rules they all loved - they thought they would have WFB 9th Edition, and AoS was not it - and never was intended to be).
That's where all the "hate" is coming from, mainly. IMHO, like always.
In part, I would argue the opposite. AoS came after Warhammer - the game that made GW famous and popular. If such sorry mess was made by an obscure company, it would have been laughed and would have disappeared soon. But since many people spent good money for years on GW minis, one of these two things happen:
A) Violent reaction: THIS GAME SUCKS F*** YOU GW B) Denial. "No actually the game is good I can keep playing with my models GW did not treat me once again with utter contept SHUT UP THE GAME IS WHAT I ALWAYS DREAMED
Is quite hilarious to observe, actually. But something so dull is destined to die off soon, unless something radical happens.
A) Violent reaction: THIS GAME SUCKS F*** YOU GW B) Denial. "No actually the game is good I can keep playing with my models GW did not treat me once again with utter contept SHUT UP THE GAME IS WHAT I ALWAYS DREAMED
There's more options than that, but the fact you think these are the only two options says more about you than it does about the game.
C) I spent a lot of money on these models, painted these models and want to still use these models, but Kings of War and all of the alternatives suck to me, and I kind of feel Age of Sigmar is a bit fun so I will play it.
D) I am burnt out on the same old same old rank and flank chess matches over the past thirty years and feel Age of Sigmar is a bit of fun, so I will play it.
E) I'm a big fan of over the top WWF Clash of the Titans fantasy and I find that Age of Sigmar fits that, so I will play it.
F) I'm kind of burnt out on competitive styled tournament chess matches and the guys that play Age of Sigmar seem more relaxed here, so I will play it.
G) I'm a big fan of how the Age of Sigmar models look, and am interested in the game system behind it, so I will play it.
H) No one here will play Kings of War or any of the alternate games, and I really want to spend time with my friends playing something, so I will play Age of Sigmar, which is what they are playing.
I) I'm really not looking at having to memorize another complicated ruleset and Age of Sigmar's light rules appeal to me. Therefore I will play Age of Sigmar.
Those are all examples of what I've heard from others who primarily play Age of Sigmar today.
There certainly is a place in the spectrum of wargames for a simple, lightweight fantasy ruleset that is easy to pick up and play. AoS fits the bill as long as you don't worry about the special rules. That's the area where the game runs the risk of becoming a Sargasso Sea of overlapping special modifiers and bonuses.
GW will continue to release new kits and books with more and more new special rules in them. This will make the situation ever more complicated, and we've already seen the SDK people abandon their comp system because of this factor.
However I think that's also the part of the game that appeals to people who like that sort of thing (a truism, I know...). I call it the Pokemon "Gotta Catch 'Em All" concept. It doesn't appeal particularly to me, but I understand how it does appeal to others. You buy a new kit, and you get an awesome new Battalion Formation.
If you're having fun with the game, fair play to you!
A) Violent reaction: THIS GAME SUCKS F*** YOU GW B) Denial. "No actually the game is good I can keep playing with my models GW did not treat me once again with utter contept SHUT UP THE GAME IS WHAT I ALWAYS DREAMED
There's more options than that, but the fact you think these are the only two options says more about you than it does about the game.
Please specify. What does it say about me?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
auticus wrote: C) I spent a lot of money on these models, painted these models and want to still use these models, but Kings of War and all of the alternatives suck to me, and I kind of feel Age of Sigmar is a bit fun so I will play it.
"GW abused my trust once again, time to reward them again"
D) I am burnt out on the same old same old rank and flank chess matches over the past thirty years and feel Age of Sigmar is a bit of fun, so I will play it.
I find amusing that the need of such skirmish system appeared after AoS came. Before, we just needed WH fixed.
E) I'm a big fan of over the top WWF Clash of the Titans fantasy and I find that Age of Sigmar fits that, so I will play it.
Fair enough I guess
F) I'm kind of burnt out on competitive styled tournament chess matches and the guys that play Age of Sigmar seem more relaxed here, so I will play it.
I am sorry this is not relevant. You can have relaxed games with WH too. We even used local anti-spam tournament rules to have a more balanced games without going into detail of what is good or bad for balance. But if we wanted to play by the ruleset 100%, we had a ruleset.
G) I'm a big fan of how the Age of Sigmar models look, and am interested in the game system behind it, so I will play it.
People are fan of tiptoeing Fyreslayers?
H) No one here will play Kings of War or any of the alternate games, and I really want to spend time with my friends playing something, so I will play Age of Sigmar, which is what they are playing.
This is sad but true
I) I'm really not looking at having to memorize another complicated ruleset and Age of Sigmar's light rules appeal to me. Therefore I will play Age of Sigmar.
Not sure about this. AoS suffers from non-rules in the general ruleset, and many exceptions for each warscroll. See shields as often discussed.
Yeah some people are a fan of the Fyreslayers. It's almost like people are capable of independent different opinions to yours! Madness I know. Plus, the same people that just wanted WH fixed aren't the same people who would be saying they wanted a skirmish system, again the whole different opinions thing. You clearly aren't a fan, but some people genuinely are, hence why your two options thing is nonsense.
I think a big part (NOT the only) is that AoS caters to an entirely different player type than WFB (i.e. psychographic profile: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iemNBE97tl4), this means that the fanbase got something that was entirely unlike what the wanted from a wargame.
A) Violent reaction: THIS GAME SUCKS F*** YOU GW B) Denial. "No actually the game is good I can keep playing with my models GW did not treat me once again with utter contept SHUT UP THE GAME IS WHAT I ALWAYS DREAMED
There's more options than that, but the fact you think these are the only two options says more about you than it does about the game.
Please specify. What does it say about me?
As you're a fan of broad strokes, here goes;
You think nuance is a wood elf special character.
You're so sure of your mental superiority that anyone who disagrees obviously is experiencing some sort of hobby- related Stockholm Syndrome.
That without complicated rules (to feel clever about) and an official points system (so you can convince yourself that your list wasn't broken, you're just a better player) you can't actually garner any enjoyment from the hobby any more because you're back to being an insecure beta with no outlet to demonstrate your prowess at being an alpha nerd. Because if winning isn't the point, then why bother, right?
Hey, isn't painting people with broad strokes fun?
You do not like AoS. I'd go as far as to say you don't like GW either.
There are others who feel the same way as you.
But there are many more either at the opposite end of the spectrum or somewhere in between. Seeing the world as only black or white isn't a good idea.
Because when someone dumb walks in the room your like ok he is stupid. But then when whfb walks in the room and then someone smacks it in the head with a brick from the average IQ of an adult to the IQ of a 3 year old then you see how dumb it got.
hobojebus wrote: Pretty sure the people that don't like AoS and GW far outnumber the fans these days.
Go to any other games forum and mention either you'll see how little people think of the company and its products.
AoS wouldn't even have been a blip if it were made by another company it's only because GW is on the box anyone paid it any attention.
GW is an example of how not to run a games company they are a laughing stock.
Ya but if I learnt anything in my 28 years of life it is that the internet is full of tough guys weirdos and complainers about nothing. It is like the worse of the worse who never leave the house internet instead. So basing anything on the net is like finding the ones who got only things to complain about.
You're so sure of your mental superiority that anyone who disagrees obviously is experiencing some sort of hobby- related Stockholm Syndrome.
I just try to find an explanation why people keep supporting a company that made them start an expensive hobby and then invalidated their choices year after year. When you are a Bretonnia player. A Tyranids player. If you bought the goblin-cleaver or the dogs of war. Or people that converted their Marbo for IG. We could go on pages with examples.
That without complicated rules (to feel clever about) and an official points system (so you can convince yourself that your list wasn't broken, you're just a better player) you can't actually garner any enjoyment from the hobby any more because you're back to being an insecure beta with no outlet to demonstrate your prowess at being an alpha nerd. Because if winning isn't the point, then why bother, right?
This is just a clumsy attempt of a strawman. That reveals your insecurities about any competitive games, perhaps (not sure).
I do not want to "feel smart with complicated rules". Lotr SBG (from GW! probably their best work along with BB, other example) has simple rules but they work fine in list building and in game. I do not want to "feel clever": I want the people writing rules being clever, and creating an efficient system because pay them money to do so. This hobby is not cheap, for money I want quality. lotr SBG and BB are simple, but are well thought and elegant. AoS is just sad.
I see the problem of point systems in former GW games; but this just demonstrate that GW is unable, I'd say unwilling, to fix or attempt to balance their games. And consider that 99% of my games were with the usual friends and very friendly, because those were the people I would talk with after drinking a beer and speaking about strategy.
Insecure beta? Oh my delicate feelings... it hurts so much. You are a clever debater, albeit merciless. I am tempted to just do not dignify you with an answer, I am a professional and I do not live more than 2 years in the same country. And I cannot dedicate so much time to the hobby. Is a slow hobby for me and GW keeps destroying what one builds (see above imagine I built a Bretonnia army, slowly, over time -AAARGH ). This is why I focus on lotr on ebay now. Is old and I hope GW does not ruins it anymore (but they added dumb rules with the Hobbit). And because Perry > Autocad (in general, there is some new stuff very good).
Winning is not the point (point is the fun), but it must be the aim of the game. How this is not obvious, is mind-boggling to me.
Hey, isn't painting people with broad strokes fun?
when done cleverly, yes. But you know... See above. You did show the same heavy-handedness of the company you are defending
You do not like AoS. I'd go as far as to say you don't like GW either.
There are others who feel the same way as you.
But there are many more either at the opposite end of the spectrum or somewhere in between. Seeing the world as only black or white isn't a good idea.
Many more? Let see where this travesty of a game goes. IMHO, not so far..
hobojebus wrote: GW is an example of how not to run a games company they are a laughing stock.
That is so true, yet GW is still making millions in profit, not in the red at all and don't owe any money and not even close to bankruptcy. For all the ill they do, they are like cockroaches and still surviving.
Then again if GW is not a way to run a games company, I find it funny Privateer Press and FFG/Amsodi (spelling? Maybe not FFG/Amsodi, could be wrong on that part) are doing the same thing GW is doing now.
hobojebus wrote: GW is an example of how not to run a games company they are a laughing stock.
That is so true, yet GW is still making millions in profit, not in the red at all and don't owe any money and not even close to bankruptcy. For all the ill they do, they are like cockroaches and still surviving.
Then again if GW is not a way to run a games company, I find it funny Privateer Press and FFG/Amsodi (spelling? Maybe not FFG/Amsodi, could be wrong on that part) are doing the same thing GW is doing now.
While not technically wrong that GW are in the black and don't owe anything, their revenue has been falling for years now and they are yet to actually find a way to stop that. I'd say a good analogy for GW is a seemingly perfectly healthy person with a potentially deadly tumor growing inside them. If the doctors can get it out they'll be absolutely fine. If.
I'm curious what you mean about PP and FFG 'doing the same thing'?
Both are very big on customer interaction, neither try to run their own retail chain. What's the similarities?
hobojebus wrote: GW is an example of how not to run a games company they are a laughing stock.
That is so true, yet GW is still making millions in profit, not in the red at all and don't owe any money and not even close to bankruptcy. For all the ill they do, they are like cockroaches and still surviving.
Then again if GW is not a way to run a games company, I find it funny Privateer Press and FFG/Amsodi (spelling? Maybe not FFG/Amsodi, could be wrong on that part) are doing the same thing GW is doing now.
While not technically wrong that GW are in the black and don't owe anything, their revenue has been falling for years now and they are yet to actually find a way to stop that. I'd say a good analogy for GW is a seemingly perfectly healthy person with a potentially deadly tumor growing inside them. If the doctors can get it out they'll be absolutely fine. If.
I'm curious what you mean about PP and FFG 'doing the same thing'?
Both are very big on customer interaction, neither try to run their own retail chain. What's the similarities?
He was talking about the recent PP 'free loader policy'.
auticus wrote: I'd say the biggest difference in the two are the communities and the fans of either game and what they want out of a game.
I played warmachine back in the day, still own my cryx, but one thing that pushed me out was that the warmachine community ... at least where I am ... was never interested in campaigns or anything that was not related to a tournament or tournament-league.
My warhammer community was also a lot like that until 8th came out.
If the community supported more non tournament events for Warmachine and focused more on narrative or kingdom building, I may give it another look but until then for me thats kind of pointless where I am because the player base is not interested in those type of games at all.
Ah, so much going on in this threads, luckily Dakka appends posts. I was about to make a comment about how civil discussion is on this board compared to...others. And it still is IMO.
Interesting comparison of games, one I haven't discussed that much with groups. Back home we actually have a lot of gamers who, like me, are game whores and play many games. WMH scratches that competitive itch while GW games are the fluff, narrative in many instances. One thing I love though about WMH which is not in Warhammer is the narrative battle is a fight with more than hack and slash. I was really hoping whatever fantasy game GW was going to put out would allow for some power attacks. There are so many interesting points in WMH besides synergy(though with annual releases for al and a constantly shifting "meta" it doesn't get old for me, and many others, but you can pull surprise and more importantly hilarious, moves. Models in my way, didn't expect me to chuck the officer at you, did you? Or epic brawl between beasts and machine, then Headbutt. Lots of options. Gators throwing Gators Or Pigs...what's not to love?
It is different though than mass battle fantasy, obviously. PP models are not too far behind GW in many cases, unless you are content with a starter box and maybe a beast/jack or two. And I love my Fyreslayers. Leaked pics, like usual, sucked. Buying them and knowing I'm going for an elemental fire theme like that sweet pic of Grimnir smashing face solved all that. In fact, I am painting them right now and until I read that I never saw a tip toe. Tbh, I still don't. They are springing or stepping into a swing/strike and the tip toe thing is just silly. It will make for some hilarious commentary at upcoming games, though. Who doesn't enjoy a good voice, pantomime or theatrical performance during a GW game?
Actually, I wonder now how many of my previous gaming groups are splitting time between these two (or maybe also 30/40K) games and for which itch..
He was talking about the recent PP 'free loader policy'.
Yeah, FFG/Asmodi did similar a while back too.
I don't play PP games any more. Did you know that if you pick their expensive stuff you can spend hundreds of dollars on just several models? Disgusting...
He was talking about the recent PP 'free loader policy'.
Yeah, FFG/Asmodi did similar a while back too.
I don't play PP games any more. Did you know that if you pick their expensive stuff you can spend hundreds of dollars on just several models? Disgusting...
I know, it's awful, they really should only give you ONE model and charge hundreds of dollars like AoS
While I haven't gamed yet, just collecting and painting even slower, is Aos and Warmahordes the same in terms of rushing into the middle and just have combat?
At least in 40K terms or the only other game I am familiar with now of Dropzone Commander, you have objectives that make you travel the board. In Warmahordes and I think AoS, it's just a rush to the middle or your opponent and duke it out.
Is there any reason to have a bigger board if everything eventually ends up in the middle?
Yes and no.
If you're not playing scenarios then like any other primarily close-combat game you'll wind up with the scrum in the middle more often than not.
Warmachine scenarios are exceptionally objective driven with positioning being very important - you still get big combats, but they are normally focussed around control points.
AoS, the scenarios lean toward destruction of the/an enemy but plenty have specific objectives where body count is irrelevant, such as get model x off the opposite board edge etc.
Pretty sure the people that don't like AoS and GW far outnumber the fans these days.
To me this is not relevant. I don't care if the things I like are embraced by everyone else, the majority of everyone else, or the minority of everyone else.
auticus wrote: I'd say the biggest difference in the two are the communities and the fans of either game and what they want out of a game.
I played warmachine back in the day, still own my cryx, but one thing that pushed me out was that the warmachine community ... at least where I am ... was never interested in campaigns or anything that was not related to a tournament or tournament-league.
My warhammer community was also a lot like that until 8th came out.
If the community supported more non tournament events for Warmachine and focused more on narrative or kingdom building, I may give it another look but until then for me thats kind of pointless where I am because the player base is not interested in those type of games at all.
Ah, so much going on in this threads, luckily Dakka appends posts. I was about to make a comment about how civil discussion is on this board compared to...others. And it still is IMO.
Interesting comparison of games, one I haven't discussed that much with groups. Back home we actually have a lot of gamers who, like me, are game whores and play many games. WMH scratches that competitive itch while GW games are the fluff, narrative in many instances. One thing I love though about WMH which is not in Warhammer is the narrative battle is a fight with more than hack and slash. I was really hoping whatever fantasy game GW was going to put out would allow for some power attacks. There are so many interesting points in WMH besides synergy(though with annual releases for al and a constantly shifting "meta" it doesn't get old for me, and many others, but you can pull surprise and more importantly hilarious, moves. Models in my way, didn't expect me to chuck the officer at you, did you? Or epic brawl between beasts and machine, then Headbutt. Lots of options. Gators throwing Gators Or Pigs...what's not to love?
It is different though than mass battle fantasy, obviously. PP models are not too far behind GW in many cases, unless you are content with a starter box and maybe a beast/jack or two. And I love my Fyreslayers. Leaked pics, like usual, sucked. Buying them and knowing I'm going for an elemental fire theme like that sweet pic of Grimnir smashing face solved all that. In fact, I am painting them right now and until I read that I never saw a tip toe. Tbh, I still don't. They are springing or stepping into a swing/strike and the tip toe thing is just silly. It will make for some hilarious commentary at upcoming games, though. Who doesn't enjoy a good voice, pantomime or theatrical performance during a GW game?
Actually, I wonder now how many of my previous gaming groups are splitting time between these two (or maybe also 30/40K) games and for which itch..
Having come from taking ancients fairly seriously, AoS was what I was looking for from warhammer (I just wanted to put some cool models and/or monsters down and have a good time, without ing coretax). Not to mention the daunting (and expensive) tome.
Which leads me to think that AoS (probably giving GW too much credit, but it worked out this way) fills a niche that could make money with less competition.
A competitive mass battle game? Kings of War. A competitive "skirmish" small game? Warmahordes. A large "skirmish" game? 40k. Realistic mass battle? Historical.
Why compete with these if you can fill a different role? The "we have nice models and easy, casual rules" role.
jonolikespie wrote:
While not technically wrong that GW are in the black and don't owe anything, their revenue has been falling for years now and they are yet to actually find a way to stop that. I'd say a good analogy for GW is a seemingly perfectly healthy person with a potentially deadly tumor growing inside them. If the doctors can get it out they'll be absolutely fine. If.
I don't think tumours have anything to do with it - think they've just changed direction and just decided they would rather focus on the high end, rather than wanting a huge community to cater to- I mean if you can sell less for more and still come out roughly even. Wouldn't you do it? My dad did the same thing with his business when he got older and when I wasn't going to follow him into it. I mean, he used to have about a half dozen part timers for about six months of the year, but gradually cut back to the point where he could run it as a one man show (with occasional help) and while he was making less stuff, he had far less outgoings and found he was coming out with the same at the end of it all. The recession hit in 2008 and most of the reason my dad was able to stay afloat was because he'd cut back to being a one man band. I see nothing wrong with it to be honest.
Kaiyanwang wrote:
I do not want to "feel smart with complicated rules". Lotr SBG (from GW! probably their best work along with BB, other example) has simple rules but they work fine in list building and in game. I do not want to "feel clever": I want the people writing rules being clever, and creating an efficient system because pay them money to do so. This hobby is not cheap, for money I want quality. lotr SBG and BB are simple, but are well thought and elegant. AoS is just sad.
I see the problem of point systems in former GW games; but this just demonstrate that GW is unable, I'd say unwilling, to fix or attempt to balance their games. And consider that 99% of my games where with the usual friends and very friendly, because those were the people I would talk with after drinking a beer and speaking about strategy.
Speaking about the lotr game, I have to agree with you here. It's a very solid game, so long as you avoid the movie characters! Nice solid rules, and interesting interactions. I think it's probably their most under appreciated game (I remember during its heyday how all the 40K folks, Including me, sadly used to hate on it for stealing resources from gws 'proper games', and I don't think a lot of people got to appreciate its subtleties and cleverness). I've recently bought quite a few warriors and riders of Rohan, along with some Gondor dudes. My mates and I often play historicals (dark ages and classical mainly) and I think the lotr rules will be excellent for running dark age skirmishes, with the boys from Rohan being decent stand-ins for celts, dark ages warriors, Roman auxiliaries etc and the Gondor plate armoured dudes are decent stand ins for any era involving plate armour. Very cheap buys too, to be perfectly honest! Better late than never, eh?
Davor wrote:While I haven't gamed yet, just collecting and painting even slower, is Aos and Warmahordes the same in terms of rushing into the middle and just have combat?
At least in 40K terms or the only other game I am familiar with now of Dropzone Commander, you have objectives that make you travel the board. In Warmahordes and I think AoS, it's just a rush to the middle or your opponent and duke it out.
Is there any reason to have a bigger board if everything eventually ends up in the middle?
To be fair, there are only so many things you can do and only so many places to go in a game where 'getting stuck in' is the order of the dat. And hitting someone over the head in melee is the most likely way to get rid of them. (Is lots of fantasy or historicals). You need to fight somewhere. I mean, you're either gonna fight in the middle, roughly in the middle. or fight on one side or the other. Or else you have two gunlines that don't really move.
Bear in mind as well, while it might seem like rushing into the middle and having combat is going on, there are a lot of subtleties and things going on beneath the surface.
DarkBlack wrote:
Which leads me to think that AoS (probably giving GW too much credit, but it worked out this way) fills a niche that could make money with less competition.
A competitive mass battle game? Kings of War. A competitive "skirmish" small game? Warmahordes. A large "skirmish" game? 40k. Realistic mass battle? Historical.
Why compete with these if you can fill a different role? The "we have nice models and easy, casual rules" role.
Pretty much. Privateer press went after the competitive players specifically with a game that focused on the competitive side of wargaming, thry did everything they can to support 'organised play' and grassroots organisation, and in s lot of ways succeeded. They knew their niche, they targeted it, and their game expanded in a big way. Fair play.
Gw are doing the same thing. They're just targeting a specific niche. It just happens though that they chucked the vast majority of their previous wfb customers off a cliff in the process and this, this didn't really help. But in a lot of ways, I think Aos is gw finally 'being honest', and making a game that reflects their own 'vision' and how they themselves play their games and how they want their players to approach their games. This is not necessarily a bad thing (nuking the old world, and turning their backs on the community that supported it's direct predecessor, along with how they introduced the game - yeah, that leans towards 'bad') There is a niche for this kind of game. It's not as visible as the Internet going/tournament crowd is, but it is there. Whether it's big enough to support Aos and to grow though - that's another question.
hobojebus wrote: GW is an example of how not to run a games company they are a laughing stock.
That is so true, yet GW is still making millions in profit, not in the red at all and don't owe any money and not even close to bankruptcy. For all the ill they do, they are like cockroaches and still surviving.
Then again if GW is not a way to run a games company, I find it funny Privateer Press and FFG/Amsodi (spelling? Maybe not FFG/Amsodi, could be wrong on that part) are doing the same thing GW is doing now.
While not technically wrong that GW are in the black and don't owe anything, their revenue has been falling for years now and they are yet to actually find a way to stop that. I'd say a good analogy for GW is a seemingly perfectly healthy person with a potentially deadly tumor growing inside them. If the doctors can get it out they'll be absolutely fine. If.
I'm curious what you mean about PP and FFG 'doing the same thing'?
Both are very big on customer interaction, neither try to run their own retail chain. What's the similarities?
Yeah but what's worrying is its whoring out its IP to anyone that can pay that's kept it "stable" model sales continue to drop year on year and they've now cut down to the bone they can't loose any more retail staff, 40k is no longer the best selling miniature game and AoS isn't on the charts but they continue on with the same disastrous pricing policy.
And if they can't continue to pay out inflated dividends the shareholders won't stick around.
Yes ffg prices have gone up slightly on web stores but it's a far cry from the 20-30% GW slaps on their new releases, prices in bricks and mortar stores are not affected.
jonolikespie wrote:
While not technically wrong that GW are in the black and don't owe anything, their revenue has been falling for years now and they are yet to actually find a way to stop that. I'd say a good analogy for GW is a seemingly perfectly healthy person with a potentially deadly tumor growing inside them. If the doctors can get it out they'll be absolutely fine. If.
I don't think tumours have anything to do with it - think they've just changed direction and just decided they would rather focus on the high end, rather than wanting a huge community to cater to- I mean if you can sell less for more and still come out roughly even. Wouldn't you do it? My dad did the same thing with his business when he got older and when I wasn't going to follow him into it. I mean, he used to have about a half dozen part timers for about six months of the year, but gradually cut back to the point where he could run it as a one man show (with occasional help) and while he was making less stuff, he had far less outgoings and found he was coming out with the same at the end of it all. The recession hit in 2008 and most of the reason my dad was able to stay afloat was because he'd cut back to being a one man band. I see nothing wrong with it to be honest.
Divorced from any GW discussion, I agree with this and have said similarly on here. In many businesses, raising prices and targeting the higher-spending niche of a niche is a smart way to go. Anecdotally, my girlfriend in her business has found more success raising prices and selling fewer products, and has even found that raising prices alone can spur new sales because of perceived value. In a project I ran for a time, I had a similar experience. There were some people who would buy my product when offered at a decent, and quite low, price, but the time investment wasn't worth it to me. There were exactly two people who would buy the highest-end version of my product for a very high price, and I was far better off catering to those two customers than the dozens below. This is not to say anything GW or anyone else does is right or wrong, but that in many industries and businesses and situations, lower prices is not always the answer.
While I haven't gamed yet, just collecting and painting even slower, is Aos and Warmahordes the same in terms of rushing into the middle and just have combat?
At least in 40K terms or the only other game I am familiar with now of Dropzone Commander, you have objectives that make you travel the board. In Warmahordes and I think AoS, it's just a rush to the middle or your opponent and duke it out.
That's not an issue with the game but the players. Each of my AoS games has been me having get across the entire board without getting stuck in the middle.
What you describe is the issue with constantly playing a beat em up, kill all battle game. You can play any game like that, 40k can and has been played like that as well. If that is the sort of game you don't like then stop playing them and put some objectives down instead - make victory dependent on getting off the far corner in 6 turns, or moving some portal objective off your side or having your wizard perform a ritual on a dragon fate dias, kill a specific hero, give your opponent unlimited reinforcements etc. It is very very easy to come up with multiple ways of avoiding what you say is an issue.
Speaking about the lotr game, I have to agree with you here. It's a very solid game, so long as you avoid the movie characters! Nice solid rules, and interesting interactions. I think it's probably their most under appreciated game (I remember during its heyday how all the 40K folks, Including me, sadly used to hate on it for stealing resources from gws 'proper games', and I don't think a lot of people got to appreciate its subtleties and cleverness). I've recently bought quite a few warriors and riders of Rohan, along with some Gondor dudes. My mates and I often play historicals (dark ages and classical mainly) and I think the lotr rules will be excellent for running dark age skirmishes, with the boys from Rohan being decent stand-ins for celts, dark ages warriors, Roman auxiliaries etc and the Gondor plate armoured dudes are decent stand ins for any era involving plate armour. Very cheap buys too, to be perfectly honest! Better late than never, eh?
The movie characters often cost a lot of points so you have to think twice before including them. Even Sauron can be "contained" somehow (but the guy would need a post dedicated). Is true that the scale and the scope feel "better" with "anonymous" captains.
I absolutely love how is a skirmish, but you can put models in formation and you have a game effect for this. I expected a similar system for AoS, you know.
I said to myself "well, maybe is for the best. Maybe we will see new interesting combats and games on a different, needed scale". Oh my how wrong was I.
I, too, regret not having appreciated lotr sbg it fully when I was still in my homeland. Still, even back then, we immediately recognised the simplicity. The hobbit introduced awful weapon rules that everybody ignores, but now the monsters are more useable. In any edition, there are imbalances but not so big like in other GW games. You can mix and match so you can have Rivendell finally with a cavalry and dwarfs with spear support. Cavatore created it, Matt Ward continued cleverly but introduced his usual imbalances and power creep, and fluff-murder like the shamans, but I just ignore the not-fluffy models. The current hobby is ok, I love less the new models because I ove less the Hobbit movies compared to the Lotr ones.
There are ways to have a whole hero army but you have to know what are you doing. Evil and Good can ally with other Evil and Good, and the warband system gives some coherence in the presentation of the list so you have no "frankenstein lists". Many things could have been improved but there would not have been time for flyers and giant robots in 40k I guess.
Rohirrim? I painted uruk-hais today
You are absolutely spot-on on the historical. Many basic tactics in lotr copy middle age low-number encounters and skirmishes. You could even go the other way around, building stats for historicals with lotr system.You can estimate very well the point cost for troops in lotr, use gondorian and rohirrim as a baseline. Go something like Orc Bow = Short Bow (1 pt), Elf Bow = English Bow (2 pt, english only). uruk-like Str4 only for the well-fed knights, the rabble uses Str3. Otherwise you keep most stats equal among all the troops and you keep the Armor system. Pikes, Spears, Lances, Cavalry, Banners, Drums, Horns, are covered. It's interesting and I could imagine a future project with models from Perry or similar companies. You gave me a good idea, thanks
The movie characters often cost a lot of points so you have to think twice before including them. Even Sauron can be "contained" somehow (but the guy would need a post dedicated). Is true that the scale and the scope feel "better" with "anonymous" captains.
I absolutely love how is a skirmish, but you can put models in formation and you have a game effect for this. I expected a similar system for AoS, you know.
I said to myself "well, maybe is for the best. Maybe we will see new interesting combats and games on a different, needed scale". Oh my how wrong was I.
Well, I think we'll be sticking with 'kings of men' to be our leaders and warlords.
We tend to do a lot of home brewing anyway, and usually play 2 on 2, so I think what I'll suggest some day (and I think the suggestion will carry) is one player 'leads' with the 'King' (because there can only be one) and the second player gets the second in command - the 'kings champion'. I envision the King to have a fight value of 5, strength 4 (because he's had at least one square meal a day most of his life) and two attacks. Along with 2 might and will points. The Kings champion gets a fight value of 6, strength 4, 3 attacks and a single point of might.
I, too, regret not having appreciated lotr sbg it fully when I was still in my homeland. Still, even back then, we immediately recognised the simplicity. The hobbit introduced awful weapon rules that everybody ignores, but now the monsters are more useable. In any edition, there are imbalances but not so big like in other GW games. You can mix and match so you can have Rivendell finally with a cavalry and dwarfs with spear support. Cavatore created it, Matt Ward continued cleverly but introduced his usual imbalances and power creep, and fluff-murder like the shamans, but I just ignore the not-fluffy models. The current hobby is ok, I love less the new models because I ove less the Hobbit movies compared to the Lotr ones.
There are ways to have a whole hero army but you have to know what are you doing. Evil and Good can ally with other Evil and Good, and the warband system gives some coherence in the presentation of the list so you have no "frankenstein lists". Many things could have been improved but there would not have been time for flyers and giant robots in 40k I guess.
I like the models for their simplicity and more 'true scale' nature. Although it's a Wargame based on a movie that's based on a fantasy book that was written by a literature profesure with a fascination for Nordic folklore, I find the sbg and its models are remarkably well grounded in a decently believable historical 'look'. I think that's entirely down to the perry's. Aside from minor greebles - I filed off the stupid trees and filigree from the Gondor helmets and shields and I find the wee horse motifs on the Rohan boys to be handwaveawayable.
When I introduced the game, I made the point that there were a few things to be aware of. First is the scale - generally, about fifty models a player is at the very upper end of what is recommended - I think at that level, the game will bog down rather quickly (2 on 2 means a hundred a side!).
Second issue is the fantasy/movie characters. The others aren't necessarily so keen on either fantasy (magic is a big immersion breaker for them) or reenacting the movies, so we'll probably just ignore frodo, his mates and the more overt fantasy elements in the gsme- we were all quite taken with Bernard cornwell's Saxon series, and uhtred is a rather cool warlord, but I can't really see him, or other dark age warlords fighting a balrog in Mercia!)
Third point - mixing and matching - well, it won't be a problem as we'll probably do that anyway. Most stuff will probably be firmly grounded in the historical period in terms of bow, spear, axe and so on. If a unit profile fits the scenario/theme then it gets used. Or else we just brew up our own one - it's not hard to figure out really (unarmoured skirmishers with bows being defence 3 and so On).
If anything though, my only issue with the rules is that they can be a bit 'artificial' at times - and I get it. Gw had to write a bunch of factions and make each distinct, but some of the limitations make little sense - Gondor cavalry don't get shields, and warriors of Rohan can't take spears (thry can take shooty spears, but not stabby spears) for example. Again, we will probably just ignore those ones and go with what makes more sense.
I was having a paIn ting night with my mate and counted what I had- twenty cavalry, forty odd archers, a hundred odd warriors of Rohan (mixture of spears and swords/axes), along with 36 warriors of minas tirith, some characters that will step in for 'kings of men' and a bunch of elves and numenorians. Enough for about eighty or ninety models aside, with two players on each.
Yeah, I have started painting the cavalry! The rest is pending!
You are absolutely spot-on on the historical. Many basic tactics in lotr copy middle age low-number encounters and skirmishes. You could even go the other way around, building stats for historicals with lotr system.You can estimate very well the point cost for troops in lotr, use gondorian and rohirrim as a baseline. Go something like Orc Bow = Short Bow (1 pt), Elf Bow = English Bow (2 pt, english only). uruk-like Str4 only for the well-fed knights, the rabble uses Str3. Otherwise you keep most stats equal among all the troops and you keep the Armor system. Pikes, Spears, Lances, Cavalry, Banners, Drums, Horns, are covered. It's interesting and I could imagine a future project with models from Perry or similar companies. You gave me a good idea, thanks
Horns and drums? I think I skipped them...
Feel free to use my ideas though! Neither of us are the first ones to use the lotr sbg rules to run historical games. There is a lot of potential there - coastal raids, sieges (love the siege ladders, battering rams and siege towers!) and a lot of interesting scenarios besides. The more I read into it, the more excited I got for all the possibilities. It's more adaptable than most of the 'rank and file' historicals we play as well, I think. Just go easy on the balrogs! This is middle England, not middle earth!
For me too, the simple and and more realistic models are a breath of fresh air compared to the over-designed stuff you see now. And the poses. Look at the Perry orcs: they are evil, but clumsy, scared pitiful creatures as well and you see them from their poses. Compare with the aggression of the Uruk. The calm distance of the elves. The best models are the ones from the movies. The actors helped a lot in the design, and this is BTW what the CGI Hobbit orc fail to accomplish: they look more like Uruk-hai than orcs. Thay are big and aggressive but they lack the pitiful aspect that a normal lotr orc has. Warhammer orcs are awesome and I love them, but that's another universe and they have another origin.
The system is modular enough that Magic is an option not something you have to bring to win. Same big monster. They are like tanks in 40k you need infantry for support. Really, does not look like a game from the same company of Warhammer. Perhaps because no more than one designer at time made it. This should perhaps show that the books of Warhammer are not unbalanced because the designers are bad, but because there is a lack of a person caring for coordination in the studio. Management problem. I can see they just give up, leave (the talented people left, who remained wrote AoS).
The stuff I am painting now is an army of 52 Uruks (48 + 4 heroes), 39 Dwarfs + 4 Heroes and 34 Noldor Elves plus 3 Heroes. 750 points each army (elves are super elite and difficult IMHO) Only 1 Elf hero has magic. One day I will add Saruman so he can rant about his Fighting Uruk-hai and ask them whom do they serve. Slooooowly hunting for metal orcs on Ebay.
BTW, you called them Filthy Orcs? They are the Fighting Uruk-hai! They slew the great warrior. They took the prisoners. They are the servants of Saruman the Wise, The White Hand: The Hand that gives them man's-flesh to eat. They came out of Isengard, and will bring the Hobbit there.
Horns and drums are options in the books, generally cost 20-25 points IIRC. I do not have the models so far but orc ones increase the non-charge movement (represent march at the rhythm of the drum) and banners give reroll. Horns increase Courage of the models on the field. Goblin drums decrease good model courages. If this breaks your immersion, just ignore them, but just FYI.
Now we should stop, is an off-topic... albeit not really. Lotr, like warmachine, is a well thought skirmish system. AoS is just an excuse to sell overpiced, overdesigned wow-ripoffs.
As other people have already said, juxtaposing Age of Sigmar and Warmachine is an apples and oranges comparison, and that's one of the reasons why it's so difficult - as this thread sadly demonstrates - to have a civilised discussion on the subject, or indeed to have one that doesn't degenerate into rehashing the same entrenched positions of 'competition vs. narrative'.
(A dichotomy of dubious value to begin with, but that's another issue.)
It not even that Age of Sigmar has just attracted players' disfavour because it has obviously been positioned by GW as the successor to WFB, while manifestly not offering players' the same experiences (i.e. massed ranks, notionally balanced battles), though it's not hard to see how this has fostered anger and disappointment.
I think the real problem with drawing comparisons between Age of Sigmar and any other mainstream wargame is that though AoS bears the signifiers of a wargame (plastic men on scenic terrain, rules, measuring, dice-rolling) it has stepped, by virtue of what it does not include (composition rules) outside the substantive boundaries of what a wargame is generally considered to be. It is a thing of its own for which there is not yet a proper name; a 'game-themed activity'.
It is different though than mass battle fantasy, obviously. PP models are not too far behind GW in many cases, unless you are content with a starter box and maybe a beast/jack or two. And I love my Fyreslayers. Leaked pics, like usual, sucked. Buying them and knowing I'm going for an elemental fire theme like that sweet pic of Grimnir smashing face solved all that. In fact, I am painting them right now and until I read that I never saw a tip toe. Tbh, I still don't. They are springing or stepping into a swing/strike and the tip toe thing is just silly. It will make for some hilarious commentary at upcoming games, though. Who doesn't enjoy a good voice, pantomime or theatrical performance during a GW game?
Moreover, the mirror pose, details, beard, are an effect of the photo and paint job? I mean seriously? Look at the crest. See nothing wrong?
What is this dwarf doing? "Come at me bro" the only SFW explanation I have. And even in that case, one expects the feet holding firmly on the ground, bracing for the charge. Tell me this is not tiptoeing. Is souless, in the pose and in the expression. Is very symbolic of AoS actually. It lacks a context.
You know, it remember me what Hayao Miyazaki said about modern anime.
"You see, whether you can draw like this or not, being able to think up this kind of design, it depends on whether or not you can say to yourself, ‘Oh, yeah, girls like this exist in real life. If you don’t spend time watching real people, you can’t do this, because you’ve never seen it. Some people spend their lives interested only in themselves. Almost all Japanese animation is produced with hardly any basis taken from observing real people, you know. It’s produced by humans who can’t stand looking at other humans. "
The resemblance with this dwarf design is uncanny. Now, in the industry there is far worse, but the price for this "masterpiece" is way too high for what it offers. Is a rushed job, and is another example of the contempt GW has for the customer. Deserved contempt, I start to think.
I don't have the same depth of feeling as Kaiyanwang, and more power to people who like it, but to me that Fireslayer looks like a pretty lazy CAD job. The two sides are almost perfectly symmetrical. It most clearly stands out in the beard, which is mirrored exactly on either side.
The face IS lacking in character compared to other GW dwarves. I'm not a huge fan of WFB Dwarves despite having an army of them, but the faces of the models almost always had a clear character to them - something this mini is clearly lacking.
This compounds the problem of the Stormcast lacking character (as an intentional design choice - asking for them to have character would be somewhat like wanting rank and file necrons to have character), and the Bloodbound being pretty mono-maniacal. The bloodbound are the only new release for AoS that I can say express any particular character beyond "I am a badass". It's "I am a psychopathic, murdering, evil badass", which isn't exactly a huge breadth either.
This is a shame for those of us who loved WFB due to it's gritty nature and the wonderful character of things like the Free Company, the Bret Men at Arms and the like.
Da Boss wrote: I don't have the same depth of feeling as Kaiyanwang, and more power to people who like it, but to me that Fireslayer looks like a pretty lazy CAD job. The two sides are almost perfectly symmetrical. It most clearly stands out in the beard, which is mirrored exactly on either side.
The face IS lacking in character compared to other GW dwarves. I'm not a huge fan of WFB Dwarves despite having an army of them, but the faces of the models almost always had a clear character to them - something this mini is clearly lacking.
This compounds the problem of the Stormcast lacking character (as an intentional design choice - asking for them to have character would be somewhat like wanting rank and file necrons to have character), and the Bloodbound being pretty mono-maniacal. The bloodbound are the only new release for AoS that I can say express any particular character beyond "I am a badass". It's "I am a psychopathic, murdering, evil badass", which isn't exactly a huge breadth either.
This is a shame for those of us who loved WFB due to it's gritty nature and the wonderful character of things like the Free Company, the Bret Men at Arms and the like.
Honestly I think lazy CAD design should be GW's new catch phrase.
I do not like any of the AoS models released to date they certainly don't warrant the prices GW asks for them even if I'd liked the game I would of gone elsewhere for models.
Da Boss wrote: I don't have the same depth of feeling as Kaiyanwang, and more power to people who like it, but to me that Fireslayer looks like a pretty lazy CAD job. The two sides are almost perfectly symmetrical. It most clearly stands out in the beard, which is mirrored exactly on either side.
The face IS lacking in character compared to other GW dwarves. I'm not a huge fan of WFB Dwarves despite having an army of them, but the faces of the models almost always had a clear character to them - something this mini is clearly lacking.
This compounds the problem of the Stormcast lacking character (as an intentional design choice - asking for them to have character would be somewhat like wanting rank and file necrons to have character), and the Bloodbound being pretty mono-maniacal. The bloodbound are the only new release for AoS that I can say express any particular character beyond "I am a badass". It's "I am a psychopathic, murdering, evil badass", which isn't exactly a huge breadth either.
This is a shame for those of us who loved WFB due to it's gritty nature and the wonderful character of things like the Free Company, the Bret Men at Arms and the like.
Honestly I think lazy CAD design should be GW's new catch phrase.
I do not like any of the AoS models released to date they certainly don't warrant the prices GW asks for them even if I'd liked the game I would of gone elsewhere for models.
Strange from my part perhaps but.. I would save the Gaunt Summoner.
- Good Concept
- Tzeentchian themes are subtle, lacks the usual heavy-handedness (ok barring the disc)
- Reminds the monsters of the director Del Toro. Just think about the Death in Hellboy
- Has over-worked parts, but they fit with the model concept
- Even then, it has clear areas to "give a break" to the viewer
- Is clear what he is doing. You don't only get he is speaking, you get he is chanting. Brilliant.
- They cared to make details of vest, head and armour not symmetrical. This should be a given but apparently is not
But still. Speaking of dwarfs, is perhaps an old trend. Who remembers the second wave of metal longbeards? Look what happened when dwarfes switched to plastics. Meh.
It is different though than mass battle fantasy, obviously. PP models are not too far behind GW in many cases, unless you are content with a starter box and maybe a beast/jack or two. And I love my Fyreslayers. Leaked pics, like usual, sucked. Buying them and knowing I'm going for an elemental fire theme like that sweet pic of Grimnir smashing face solved all that. In fact, I am painting them right now and until I read that I never saw a tip toe. Tbh, I still don't. They are springing or stepping into a swing/strike and the tip toe thing is just silly. It will make for some hilarious commentary at upcoming games, though. Who doesn't enjoy a good voice, pantomime or theatrical performance during a GW game?
Moreover, the mirror pose, details, beard, are an effect of the photo and paint job? I mean seriously? Look at the crest. See nothing wrong?
What is this dwarf doing? "Come at me bro" the only SFW explanation I have. And even in that case, one expects the feet holding firmly on the ground, bracing for the charge. Tell me this is not tiptoeing. Is souless, in the pose and in the expression. Is very symbolic of AoS actually. It lacks a context.
You know, it remember me what Hayao Miyazaki said about modern anime.
"You see, whether you can draw like this or not, being able to think up this kind of design, it depends on whether or not you can say to yourself, ‘Oh, yeah, girls like this exist in real life. If you don’t spend time watching real people, you can’t do this, because you’ve never seen it. Some people spend their lives interested only in themselves. Almost all Japanese animation is produced with hardly any basis taken from observing real people, you know. It’s produced by humans who can’t stand looking at other humans. "
The resemblance with this dwarf design is uncanny. Now, in the industry there is far worse, but the price for this "masterpiece" is way too high for what it offers. Is a rushed job, and is another example of the contempt GW has for the customer. Deserved contempt, I start to think.
Well. I didn't design it so I can't speak for those who made this but all I can give is my own opinion. You like it or you don't. I've yet to meet a dwarf collector with more and a wider range of dwarf models that I have from many many lines so I feel quite comfortable with my own take on my models. Are they better than the previous slayers or 8th Ed dwarf releases? IMO no. Having assembled and painted a few boxes of these this one model you linked is the closest to what I think you are calling tippy toes. Even then, I don't think I'd call it that. I'm happy to have plastic slyaers and have modeled them in a way I like, so I'm content. Could they have been better? Absolutely! the crest looked odd in the pics but works out just fine in person. These studio pics were unfortunate. But I've seen many painters so far work the flesh tone design just fine and make they look great.
In short, I disagree with you on this one. The crest and poses worked out fine. I don't see tippy toes as you do. And I'm really not sure where you are getting this whole "masterpiece" thing from. It's unfortunate you dislike all the AOS stuff, I hope your gaming experience is enjoyable and you fight many epic battles But I really hope you don't actually think the staff at GW, or really any company, is out to get its customers and muhahahaha, monies!! That last part is...just absurd.
It's lazy CAD work.. Beard is exact on both sides, Mohawk is same on both sides, both arms in the same position... Just change the symbol on the wristband and models done
Well. I didn't design it so I can't speak for those who made this but all I can give is my own opinion. You like it or you don't. I've yet to meet a dwarf collector with more and a wider range of dwarf models that I have from many many lines so I feel quite comfortable with my own take on my models. Are they better than the previous slayers or 8th Ed dwarf releases? IMO no. Having assembled and painted a few boxes of these this one model you linked is the closest to what I think you are calling tippy toes. Even then, I don't think I'd call it that. I'm happy to have plastic slyaers and have modeled them in a way I like, so I'm content. Could they have been better? Absolutely! the crest looked odd in the pics but works out just fine in person. These studio pics were unfortunate. But I've seen many painters so far work the flesh tone design just fine and make they look great.
In short, I disagree with you on this one. The crest and poses worked out fine. I don't see tippy toes as you do. And I'm really not sure where you are getting this whole "masterpiece" thing from. It's unfortunate you dislike all the AOS stuff, I hope your gaming experience is enjoyable and you fight many epic battles But I really hope you don't actually think the staff at GW, or really any company, is out to get its customers and muhahahaha, monies!! That last part is...just absurd.
What can I say? As people above said, more power to you. And I suppose modelling (helped by the plastic material) solves some of the posing issue. I do not like the big weapons and I am appreciating the small maces on my lotr orcs right now, but that's high fantasy and behind this there is a common design paradigm present in Warmachine, too.
I cannot explain the pricing, anyway. Of course a company will want money from customers, is how they work. What I question is the offer in base of the money asked.
But you too have fun converting and painting man (or woman)! Enjoy and thanks!
One note: I do not want to pick on designers that much. I do not think that people working in GW now are exceptionally talented (the comparison with former employees, even people dangerously creative like Mr. Ward, author of so much crap but of so much brilliance as well), but my guess (just my guess, mind it) is that many game designers or miniature artists are doing hasty jobs because they are overworked and undermanned. Bean counters in GW, I think, just do not believe in investing in people.
GW did see Warmachine, a CEO said "look they have bigger minis in proportion, and free 4 pages rules. That's why they are gaining ground. Do something like this. Do it NOW do not worry about the quality - they will buy it anyway because we are the best on the market. Ah, add something spacemariney to it. Horus Heresy is selling like hotcakes, is not because FW gives a flying disk about rules and bg, it must be because of the marines. Add moar marines we cannot go wrong. Get rid of this low fantasy stuff, look at Warcraft this is what kids want nowadays".
The problem is that, like psychopaths, GW knows the words but not the music. Behind the skirmish rules of Warmachine there is a careful process of testing and dialogue with the gamers. This is not perfect (Pistol Wraith uber-nerf, anyone? ) but the framework created allows for a tight ruleset that can be then well represented in few pages. Then any model comes with rules on the box and this is the reason warscrolls exist. We will see them in the boxes. because Privateer does and must be the cool thing to do - disregarding all the context around such rules in the box.
Same with the setting. Albeit the stereotype behind Warmachine is a cutthroat gaming environment, the setting is rich. The Iron Kingdoms are born from a DnD 3rd edition campaign setting; there is heart and creativity poured in it, with typical and untypical fantasy tropes applied ad hoc. Hell, even basic elements very DnD-esque, like energy damage (fire, frost, acid.. ) are maintained. Nothing of this is compared to the Cosmic Blandess of AoS.
GW just fails to understand why certain mechanics or setting elements in Warmachine reach the heart of the customer. Like psychos, GW sees a normal "person" (Privateer) interact and have depth, plans, content but the only thing that GW can do is mimicry the behaviour of the neurotypical dude because has no depth by himself. From a superficial analysis it looks like the same behaviour but is not. Is a mimicry devoid of the inner understanding of why certain behaviours are implemented. The words, but not the music.
Calm down, I am aware of the exaggeration of this hyperbole. Is indeed veeeeery daring (but I am not the first person that compares a company to a person, and even not the first one to attribute to a company a psychopathic behaviour).
But look at AoS. Flashy superficial elements, a superficial charme. There is nothing inside, no interest, no passion. They keep repeating they are the best in minis, but these Age of Autocad failures demonstrate that this is just a facade. Or narcissistic grandiosity. The 4 pages are another facade, just an excuse to sell the uninspired minis. There is no true depth in them. Lack of long term goals. We know almost nothing of Aelves, or other creatures. There is not a visible and coherent plan in the release, at least one that the customers can envision (there is not empathy for the customer, no understanding that he would want to plan for his expensive hobby. There is no concept of planning, just impulsivity). . Ruthlessness. Goodbye bretonnia, goodbye khemri. Pathological lying ("we are not going to squat anything anymore").
And going outside AoS, just think how easily GW becomes a bully when thinks that can get away with it. does anyone remembers the Space Marine lawsuit? I mean that is impossible, arrogant, and unrealistic. Something only a psycho can conceive. The facade drops, and you see the true face of the psycho.
And you, like the friends or relatives of the psychopath, remain there baffled, bewildered and unable to understand this guy, his plans, his incoherence, his shortsightedness, and his ultimate tendency to self destruction.
But look at AoS. Flashy superficial elements, a superficial charme. There is nothing inside, no interest, no passion. They keep repeating they are the best in minis, but these Age of Autocad failures demonstrate that this is just a facade. Or narcissistic grandiosity. The 4 pages are another facade, just an excuse to sell the uninspired minis. There is no true depth in them. Lack of long term goals. We know almost nothing of Aelves, or other creatures..
But look at AoS. Flashy superficial elements, a superficial charme. There is nothing inside, no interest, no passion. They keep repeating they are the best in minis, but these Age of Autocad failures demonstrate that this is just a facade. Or narcissistic grandiosity. The 4 pages are another facade, just an excuse to sell the uninspired minis. There is no true depth in them. Lack of long term goals. We know almost nothing of Aelves, or other creatures..
lol, we're less than a year in the release.
This notwithstanding, how many big, costly books have been already released? And I dare to say that to describe with enough depth a whole setting, a single big book is enough. RPGs do it the whole time, and they must include loads of other useless stuff like... rules.
Again, compare with the current core of warmachine
GW did see Warmachine, a CEO said "look they have bigger minis in proportion, and free 4 pages rules. That's why they are gaining ground. Do something like this. Do it NOW do not worry about the quality - they will buy it anyway because we are the best on the market. Ah, add something spacemariney to it. Horus Heresy is selling like hotcakes, is not because FW gives a flying disk about rules and bg, it must be because of the marines. Add moar marines we cannot go wrong. Get rid of this low fantasy stuff, look at Warcraft this is what kids want nowadays".
I can say with certainty that GW had absolutely no intention of copying Warmachine.
The fact that AoS is the polar opposite of WMH in basic terms - no composition and non-competitive play - should be enough evidence that this wasn't the aim.
As for the Stormcast - according to Gav Thorpe, the idea of getting the space marine trope into WFB has been around since 6th edition - well over 8 years ago.
GW did see Warmachine, a CEO said "look they have bigger minis in proportion, and free 4 pages rules. That's why they are gaining ground. Do something like this. Do it NOW do not worry about the quality - they will buy it anyway because we are the best on the market. Ah, add something spacemariney to it. Horus Heresy is selling like hotcakes, is not because FW gives a flying disk about rules and bg, it must be because of the marines. Add moar marines we cannot go wrong. Get rid of this low fantasy stuff, look at Warcraft this is what kids want nowadays".
I can say with certainty that GW had absolutely no intention of copying Warmachine.
The fact that AoS is the polar opposite of WMH in basic terms - no composition and non-competitive play - should be enough evidence that this wasn't the aim.
As for the Stormcast - according to Gav Thorpe, the idea of getting the space marine trope into WFB has been around since 6th edition - well over 8 years ago.
But they copied the superfical elements; this is what I say in my (absolutely tongue in cheek) "essay". Not negating your points, be sure.
Mind tha this could be because of an erratic management or misguided, unmotivated designers. I just have an hypothesis. Nothing else.
There's also a nugget where some people require a lot of complex rules to feel that the game is good and complicated enough to allow strategies and tactics, and there are other people that don't want to have to learn a large complicated ruleset, and those people will typically never see eye to eye.
I read similar arguments between fans of pathfinder (who typically seem to love complex rules and lots of them) and fans of 5e D&D (who seem to favor simpler rules).
But they copied the superfical elements; this is what I say in my (absolutely tongue in cheek) "essay". Not negating your points, be sure.
Mind tha this could be because of an erratic management or misguided, unmotivated designers. I just have an hypothesis. Nothing else.
Okay, I'm calling you on that; what did they 'copy'?
After all, above a certain threshold of detail, a wargame is a wargame is a wargame, i.e. 'move miniatures around board, roll dice'.
But they copied the superfical elements; this is what I say in my (absolutely tongue in cheek) "essay". Not negating your points, be sure.
Mind tha this could be because of an erratic management or misguided, unmotivated designers. I just have an hypothesis. Nothing else.
Okay, I'm calling you on that; what did they 'copy'?
After all, above a certain threshold of detail, a wargame is a wargame is a wargame, i.e. 'move miniatures around board, roll dice'.
Increased size of the models and base size, more "cartoonish" features of the minis, 4 page free rules (missing the point completely on why those are good), skirmish, warscroll as rules-in-a-page, formations: after Warmachine did tiers for Warcasters since a long time (but again, GW did it only to justify spamming unit X, not to make specific themes work).
In a very shallow way, and again, missing the point of what's good in the Warmachine game, but to me it looks like a superficial, albeit quite pathetic, attempt to imitate a competitor. I would not say actually "copy", because they just are not able to go in depth. Mimicry is better perhaps?
To me they look like clumsy moves dictated by fear. They just underestimate the need of a good ruleset, because people bought their cool minis for their bad rulesets for years. But with time the quality of rules reached a critical (lower) threshold and the minis just did not keep up. They just do not get that, say, is pointless to pump out big monsters for storm of magic if the basic ruleset is dumb or, more often, the army books are so imbalanced that people just refuse to play out of frustration. Or that after you spent time and money to convert a Chaos Dreadnought to have sonic cannon, you are really disappointed when next codex annihilates all your time and effort.
Is superficial, cosmetic. The words, not the music.
Or perhaps, they understood it too late, and now came out with the schizophrenic idea of a lighthearted premium product because hire competent people or pay more the ones they have now is too difficult to explain to the bean counters.
Well. I didn't design it so I can't speak for those who made this but all I can give is my own opinion. You like it or you don't. I've yet to meet a dwarf collector with more and a wider range of dwarf models that I have from many many lines so I feel quite comfortable with my own take on my models. Are they better than the previous slayers or 8th Ed dwarf releases? IMO no. Having assembled and painted a few boxes of these this one model you linked is the closest to what I think you are calling tippy toes. Even then, I don't think I'd call it that. I'm happy to have plastic slyaers and have modeled them in a way I like, so I'm content. Could they have been better? Absolutely! the crest looked odd in the pics but works out just fine in person. These studio pics were unfortunate. But I've seen many painters so far work the flesh tone design just fine and make they look great.
In short, I disagree with you on this one. The crest and poses worked out fine. I don't see tippy toes as you do. And I'm really not sure where you are getting this whole "masterpiece" thing from. It's unfortunate you dislike all the AOS stuff, I hope your gaming experience is enjoyable and you fight many epic battles But I really hope you don't actually think the staff at GW, or really any company, is out to get its customers and muhahahaha, monies!! That last part is...just absurd.
What can I say? As people above said, more power to you. And I suppose modelling (helped by the plastic material) solves some of the posing issue. I do not like the big weapons and I am appreciating the small maces on my lotr orcs right now, but that's high fantasy and behind this there is a common design paradigm present in Warmachine, too.
I cannot explain the pricing, anyway. Of course a company will want money from customers, is how they work. What I question is the offer in base of the money asked.
But you too have fun converting and painting man (or woman)! Enjoy and thanks!
One note: I do not want to pick on designers that much. I do not think that people working in GW now are exceptionally talented (the comparison with former employees, even people dangerously creative like Mr. Ward, author of so much crap but of so much brilliance as well), but my guess (just my guess, mind it) is that many game designers or miniature artists are doing hasty jobs because they are overworked and undermanned. Bean counters in GW, I think, just do not believe in investing in people.
GW did see Warmachine, a CEO said "look they have bigger minis in proportion, and free 4 pages rules. That's why they are gaining ground. Do something like this. Do it NOW do not worry about the quality - they will buy it anyway because we are the best on the market. Ah, add something spacemariney to it. Horus Heresy is selling like hotcakes, is not because FW gives a flying disk about rules and bg, it must be because of the marines. Add moar marines we cannot go wrong. Get rid of this low fantasy stuff, look at Warcraft this is what kids want nowadays".
The problem is that, like psychopaths, GW knows the words but not the music. Behind the skirmish rules of Warmachine there is a careful process of testing and dialogue with the gamers. This is not perfect (Pistol Wraith uber-nerf, anyone? ) but the framework created allows for a tight ruleset that can be then well represented in few pages. Then any model comes with rules on the box and this is the reason warscrolls exist. We will see them in the boxes. because Privateer does and must be the cool thing to do - disregarding all the context around such rules in the box.
Same with the setting. Albeit the stereotype behind Warmachine is a cutthroat gaming environment, the setting is rich. The Iron Kingdoms are born from a DnD 3rd edition campaign setting; there is heart and creativity poured in it, with typical and untypical fantasy tropes applied ad hoc. Hell, even basic elements very DnD-esque, like energy damage (fire, frost, acid.. ) are maintained. Nothing of this is compared to the Cosmic Blandess of AoS.
GW just fails to understand why certain mechanics or setting elements in Warmachine reach the heart of the customer. Like psychos, GW sees a normal "person" (Privateer) interact and have depth, plans, content but the only thing that GW can do is mimicry the behaviour of the neurotypical dude because has no depth by himself. From a superficial analysis it looks like the same behaviour but is not. Is a mimicry devoid of the inner understanding of why certain behaviours are implemented. The words, but not the music.
Calm down, I am aware of the exaggeration of this hyperbole. Is indeed veeeeery daring (but I am not the first person that compares a company to a person, and even not the first one to attribute to a company a psychopathic behaviour).
But look at AoS. Flashy superficial elements, a superficial charme. There is nothing inside, no interest, no passion. They keep repeating they are the best in minis, but these Age of Autocad failures demonstrate that this is just a facade. Or narcissistic grandiosity. The 4 pages are another facade, just an excuse to sell the uninspired minis. There is no true depth in them. Lack of long term goals. We know almost nothing of Aelves, or other creatures. There is not a visible and coherent plan in the release, at least one that the customers can envision (there is not empathy for the customer, no understanding that he would want to plan for his expensive hobby. There is no concept of planning, just impulsivity). . Ruthlessness. Goodbye bretonnia, goodbye khemri. Pathological lying ("we are not going to squat anything anymore").
And going outside AoS, just think how easily GW becomes a bully when thinks that can get away with it. does anyone remembers the Space Marine lawsuit? I mean that is impossible, arrogant, and unrealistic. Something only a psycho can conceive. The facade drops, and you see the true face of the psycho.
And you, like the friends or relatives of the psychopath, remain there baffled, bewildered and unable to understand this guy, his plans, his incoherence, his shortsightedness, and his ultimate tendency to self destruction.
Very well said, but is it true? That is how I see it as well. Does it matter if it is true though? If this is what I and many other people perceive that GW is, then GW has a problem. If they don't consider this a problem on how we perceive them, that to me would me they are content to where they are. In the black making only a few millions and not worrying about growing and making more money. (Yes I know as a publically traded company, I can't see that sitting very well with the share holders and since GW hasn't been taken to court or anyone charged with fraud and not helping out the shareholders my thinking can't be true either. Again it's a perceived thing.) That being said, it does look like it is a problem with GW and they are making changes where last year we would have never even thought of GW doing what they are doing now.
Just wondering about the "Pathological lying ("we are not going to squat anything anymore")" you have said. Did GW actually say this, or is this from a rumour monger who said GW said this in the board room. I don't recall GW telling us nothing would be squatted. I recall reading this in 40K rumours but not for AoS. Are we getting them mixed up now?
Again, well said, sadly that is how I perceived what GW is doing with AoS.
Just wondering about the "Pathological lying ("we are not going to squat anything anymore")" you have said. Did GW actually say this, or is this from a rumour monger who said GW said this in the board room. I don't recall GW telling us nothing would be squatted. I recall reading this in 40K rumours but not for AoS. Are we getting them mixed up now?
If I got it wrong, my apologies, but I hope my (hyperbolic) point comes across anyway.
In a very shallow way, and again, missing the point of what's good in the Warmachine game, but to me it looks like a superficial, albeit quite pathetic, attempt to imitate a competitor. I would not say actually "copy", because they just are not able to go in depth. Mimicry is better perhaps?
Yeah, what you've done there is confuse similarities with copying. Even less the fact that I don't think anybody those aspects are unique to Warmachine either, so this is a rabbit-hole best avoided...
In a very shallow way, and again, missing the point of what's good in the Warmachine game, but to me it looks like a superficial, albeit quite pathetic, attempt to imitate a competitor. I would not say actually "copy", because they just are not able to go in depth. Mimicry is better perhaps?
Yeah, what you've done there is confuse similarities with copying. Even less the fact that I don't think anybody those aspects are unique to Warmachine either, so this is a rabbit-hole best avoided...
I am sorry, but these are all rushed implements to the substitute of a game that died, and make such substitute more similar to one current strong competitor.
Maybe I am too suspicious and too malicious (because I am) but doesn't this raise some suspect? I mean no offence given but isn't a bit naive think that is all a coincidence?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
auticus wrote: There's also a nugget where some people require a lot of complex rules to feel that the game is good and complicated enough to allow strategies and tactics, and there are other people that don't want to have to learn a large complicated ruleset, and those people will typically never see eye to eye.
I read similar arguments between fans of pathfinder (who typically seem to love complex rules and lots of them) and fans of 5e D&D (who seem to favor simpler rules).
Except that 5e is a complete ruleset. You know exactly how many slots of spell a Wizard has at level 5. The Manual does not say that they are how many it feels right.
Of course you can houserule it, and this is even simpler because DnD is an RPG. And you can houserule a wargame with a point system as well, and ignore half f the rules, and create a game with characters only. But if you need a quick and dirty framework, the designers implemented it. They bothered to do that.
I am sorry, but these are all rushed implements to the substitute of a game that died, and make such substitute more similar to one current strong competitor.
Maybe I am too suspicious and too malicious (because I am) but doesn't this raise some suspect? I mean no offence given but isn't a bit naive think that is all a coincidence?
It doesn't raise any suspicions, because - again - you're seeing similarities, deciding that's copying, then working backward through a chain of reasoning where every point confirms your initial assumption.
But look at AoS. Flashy superficial elements, a superficial charme. There is nothing inside, no interest, no passion. They keep repeating they are the best in minis, but these Age of Autocad failures demonstrate that this is just a facade. Or narcissistic grandiosity. The 4 pages are another facade, just an excuse to sell the uninspired minis. There is no true depth in them. Lack of long term goals. We know almost nothing of Aelves, or other creatures..
lol, we're less than a year in the release.
The whole of Lord Of The Rings (three volumes) was published in a year, during austerity when paper was rationed.
I am sorry, but these are all rushed implements to the substitute of a game that died, and make such substitute more similar to one current strong competitor.
Maybe I am too suspicious and too malicious (because I am) but doesn't this raise some suspect? I mean no offence given but isn't a bit naive think that is all a coincidence?
It doesn't raise any suspicions, because - again - you're seeing similarities, deciding that's copying, then working backward through a chain of reasoning where every point confirms your initial assumption.
I claim no definitive proof, mind it; not sure about it but I think that the element I listed along with the timing, along with the role of Privateer as rival, along with the urge of rebooting, along with more element in the whole GW content production context*, are enough to raise more than some suspicion. I would not be so hasty in dismissing it.
*An example of this? The background of WFB and 40k were often accused of being stagnating. Accuses I actually never understood, because I want a setting - if I wanted a story I would have searched a book, as stated. Now we have this continuous (albeit shallow) updating for the AoS books, and the current updates for 40k are these "campaign mode" books with formations. Now compare this with Warmachine and the expansion books with new minis, advance of the story (meh) and new incarnations of warcasters (some of them even change faction, especially if Cryx catches you). Ok can be a coincidence but is in a moment in which the market expands but GW does not grow at the same rate. Impossible they did have a look to what other are doing, and answered with their usual "subtlety"?
In a very shallow way, and again, missing the point of what's good in the Warmachine game, but to me it looks like a superficial, albeit quite pathetic, attempt to imitate a competitor. I would not say actually "copy", because they just are not able to go in depth. Mimicry is better perhaps?
Yeah, what you've done there is confuse similarities with copying. Even less the fact that I don't think anybody those aspects are unique to Warmachine either, so this is a rabbit-hole best avoided...
I think you are both partially right. Innovation will breed imitation. And to be fair, everybody will do it. All companies will imitate from each other; if one does a good idea that picks up traction, expect everyone else to follow suit. Perfect example being privateer press' Los rules in how a model occupies a precise 'volume of space' which is a column of a specific height, drawn from its models base. Corvis belli ripped it, almost verbatim for infinity n3.
Warmachine isn't entirely 'unique' either. Cover being a defense modifier was seen in 40k second ed. unit by unit activations has been there for ages. The combo/synergy nature of the game is similar from a lot of ccg's (and Matt Wilson was involved with magic and l5r.)
But with regard to gw, they have made their own take on a lot of things pp have been doing, and they've done it for longer than folks realise. Ironically, most of 40k itself is ripped from various other ip's- moorcock, heinlein, 2000ad, dune, lovecraft and 80s pop culture and satire.
Back in 2011-2012" when warmachine mk2 was really starting to kick off, and the game was generating a lot of steam, privateer press were the mover and shaker in the industry. A lot of the things they were doing was ahead of the curve for ttg's - world wide betas being the biggest example. But I noticed, even back then, how gw was not so subtly aping their 'character-centric' approach amongst other things. It was no surprise to me how 'characters' started to become such a huge thing in 40k at that time. Specific characters were even required if you wanted to play specific lists (5th edition dark Angels: if you wanted to play deathwing, you had to take Belial, if you wanted ravenwing, you had to take sammael for example) and armies were defined by the characters that led them - Vulcan hestan, shrike, Khan etc. Almost like how characters in warmachine define their armies too.
Wang isn't wrong either. There are a lot of things in Aos that scream 'these things work for other people, let's follow their lead and implement those systems ourselves" I'm surprised they don't use cards for their units stats etc, and it's almost a tick box exercise in terms of 'systems we've seen before'. Aos isn't innovative. It doesn't do anything new. It forces you to approach the game building in a specific way, that's about it.
I'm not denying that there are similarities between AoS and other systems.
Just the suggestion that AoSset out to be a copy of WMH.
Because if that *was* the idea, they hit the details but none of the high-level stuff.
It's like Boeing tried to make a car by adding a sunroof, anti-lock brakes and an airbag to a plane.
RoperPG wrote: I'm not denying that there are similarities between AoS and other systems.
Just the suggestion that AoSset out to be a copy of WMH.
Because if that *was* the idea, they hit the details but none of the high-level stuff.
It's like Boeing tried to make a car by adding a sunroof, anti-lock brakes and an airbag to a plane.
This is my point: they tried but either they have not the skill, or some executive meddling forced the designer to avoid, say, put 0-1 choices (stupid example, just to understand) because (say) that would forbid people to buy more stuff. So because of time restraints, lack of inspiration, meddling and Tzeentch knows what they came out with something that is.. how do you say in english? Neither flesh nor fowl?
And more than set out, something like "put this [warmachine element], too, for other systems works (see above).
Ah, and I do not want to say that ripoffs are always negative. Often are not: the Zerg-Tyranids loop between Blizzard and GW is a great one IMHO. Just, must be done with the intent of an homage, or even a well planned, evil copycat - maybe something good comes out anyway (see Zerg-Tyranids). But not under panic.
@Deadnight: good catch about the characters and the themed army around them. Yes. Definitively yes.
To be fair, the basic concept of abstract determination of LOS dates at least from Panzer Leader (Avalon Hill, 1974), so while Infinity may have borrowed the idea from Warmachine, it isn't a new idea in itself.
auticus wrote: There's also a nugget where some people require a lot of complex rules to feel that the game is good and complicated enough to allow strategies and tactics, and there are other people that don't want to have to learn a large complicated ruleset, and those people will typically never see eye to eye.
I read similar arguments between fans of pathfinder (who typically seem to love complex rules and lots of them) and fans of 5e D&D (who seem to favor simpler rules).
I think the best bet is a simple core ruleset with a the ability to have a lot of granularity and depth in actual units themselves.
I don't think there's too many people who actually like unnecessarily and excessively convoluted rules, but I'm sure there's a lot who appreciate a lot of depth in the units which make up the game.
RoperPG wrote:I'm not denying that there are similarities between AoS and other systems.
Just the suggestion that AoSset out to be a copy of WMH.
Because if that *was* the idea, they hit the details but none of the high-level stuff.
It's like Boeing tried to make a car by adding a sunroof, anti-lock brakes and an airbag to a plane.
It didn't set out to be a copy of WMH - let's face it, gw are not stupid. WMH is an excellent competitive-focused game, and has a lot of that niche cornered, if not sown up. Gw are a company that have never really been either competent/focused enough, nor interested in, designing a competitive focused game of thst calibre. Even if they did want to do this, look at what they're going up against. Privateer press is the young punk - they're lean, mean, eager, focused and frankly, they're bloody good at what they're doing. If gw went after them, their game, or their niche with something similar, there's a very good risk all they'd get out of it is a bloody nose. Their game could too easily fail against established rivals. It's really not worth the effort, especially when gws main thinkers and designers entire exposure, thinking and vision of wargames comes, essentially from a historical-based perspective where things like home brews, eyeballing things, and a focus on playing the game for the story, for laughs and to hang out with mates, rather than a focus on winning the game are the order of the day. There is a reason that gw are targeting the niche that they are targeting. For a variety of reasons. In a way, Aos is no surprise to me. It's gwfinally being honest, and finally presenting a game whose entire focus reflects their vision, and is steeped in their 'way' of playing wargames. Frankly, it's a fun approach, but I rather get my kicks out of thst approach with historicals (and lotr!)
To answer your point though, your comparison of Boeing making a car from a plane by attaching a sunroof and whatnot doesn't really work. it's not gw trying to make Aos a copy of WMH. It's gw aping a lot of the systems (such as 4 pages of rules, 'card' equivelants defining a unit, world of Warcraft aesthetics, combo/synergy based mechanics, even if it's homeopathic warmachine, formations/tiers, etc) and the approaches that privateer press used, that made their game such a huge success and hoping, essentially,That lightning strikes twice, and that the systems used are themselves enough to sell the game, though their aiming the gun at a different niche and hoping that they can pull it off.
Kaiyanwang wrote:
This is my point: they tried but either they have not the skill, or some executive meddling forced the designer to avoid, say, put 0-1 choices (stupid example, just to understand) because (say) that would forbid people to buy more stuff. So because of time restraints, lack of inspiration, meddling and Tzeentch knows what they came out with something that is.. how do you say in english? Neither flesh nor fowl?
I think the designers have the skill, but they're not the shot callers in the company. I have saved a quote from Pete Haines thst describes the meddling of the 'higher powers' in gw, and that, essentially, although the designers might get their faces in white dwarf, it's marketing, and nothing more, and they have very little really power. It's a working department, not a creative workshop I'm afraid, you're given a project brief, you're given a deadline, and all too limited resources, and you don't step out of your brief. You're job is to do what they tell you to do, and if that is make a centurion, even if that is against all of your gut instincts, you do it, because the other option is to be kicked out on the street (they're a hire and fire company, Where job security is the Privilige of those above the glass ceiling, and where essentially, there are a hundred nerds waiting to take and do your job for less money. Oh, and as a bonus, you get your name put in gw's 'little black book' and you never work in the industry again).
I did hear that jj brought various proposals for the 'engine' to run Aos, including point based options and essentially it was rountree who greenlit the pointless, and minimum-investment-to-rules approach. It would not surprise me.
Kaiyanwang wrote:
And more than set out, something like "put this [warmachine element], too, for other systems works (see above).
Yup. But as was said, every company will do this. It's up for discussion as to whether gw understands 'why' those elements work, or if it's simply mimicry. I'll lean towards they understand why but aren't really interested. Gw fans will get it (double meaning, or rather, triple meaning here is intentional).
Kaiyanwang wrote:
@Deadnight: good catch about the characters and the themed army around them. Yes. Definitively yes.
I've been bleating on about things for years, no one listens to me though. *grumble*
But look at AoS. Flashy superficial elements, a superficial charme. There is nothing inside, no interest, no passion. They keep repeating they are the best in minis, but these Age of Autocad failures demonstrate that this is just a facade. Or narcissistic grandiosity. The 4 pages are another facade, just an excuse to sell the uninspired minis. There is no true depth in them. Lack of long term goals. We know almost nothing of Aelves, or other creatures..
lol, we're less than a year in the release.
The whole of Lord Of The Rings (three volumes) was published in a year, during austerity when paper was rationed.
Started in the 30's and published in the 50's, not really quite the same league. And it still didn't provide a point system, plonker.
Well. I didn't design it so I can't speak for those who made this but all I can give is my own opinion. You like it or you don't. I've yet to meet a dwarf collector with more and a wider range of dwarf models that I have from many many lines so I feel quite comfortable with my own take on my models. Are they better than the previous slayers or 8th Ed dwarf releases? IMO no. Having assembled and painted a few boxes of these this one model you linked is the closest to what I think you are calling tippy toes. Even then, I don't think I'd call it that. I'm happy to have plastic slyaers and have modeled them in a way I like, so I'm content. Could they have been better? Absolutely! the crest looked odd in the pics but works out just fine in person. These studio pics were unfortunate. But I've seen many painters so far work the flesh tone design just fine and make they look great.
In short, I disagree with you on this one. The crest and poses worked out fine. I don't see tippy toes as you do. And I'm really not sure where you are getting this whole "masterpiece" thing from. It's unfortunate you dislike all the AOS stuff, I hope your gaming experience is enjoyable and you fight many epic battles But I really hope you don't actually think the staff at GW, or really any company, is out to get its customers and muhahahaha, monies!! That last part is...just absurd.
What can I say? As people above said, more power to you. And I suppose modelling (helped by the plastic material) solves some of the posing issue. I do not like the big weapons and I am appreciating the small maces on my lotr orcs right now, but that's high fantasy and behind this there is a common design paradigm present in Warmachine, too.
I cannot explain the pricing, anyway. Of course a company will want money from customers, is how they work. What I question is the offer in base of the money asked.
But you too have fun converting and painting man (or woman)! Enjoy and thanks!
My big disappointment in the FyreSlayers was that they didn't go far enough. I wanted their helmets actually to have (little scale model) flaming braziers in the top, not just horsehair crests.
Trouble with Fyreslayers is that you can feel they tried to stick to the old Slayer paint schema. You can also see that with Free People of the Grand Order Army Book; it's almost as they wanted to say "hey people who were fans of the old universe, don't worry, Empire guys are still there! Look, they still can be painted the same!".
You can see GW is struggling between new players who are open to a totally new background and old players who still want to play the old miniatures with the same design they were so fond of. That's why you may sometimes feel something is a bit "off" in AoS and the new miniatures, IMHO.
About the rules...GW works the same than for 40k, adding contents gradually until you are flooded by supplements everywhere. Think of it as "game modules". Or DLC in video games, if you really want to be snarky.
Most of the "special rules" come from profiles and battleplans. And since there is an entry for almost every miniature, that makes a lot of profiles. Game is not that simple when you play with a lot of different units, you have to take a reminder for quite a lot of special rules sometimes.
I don't even talk about "fan made" profiles, to take into account some nice (and quite inventive) conversions.
You do certainly have a lot of rules to take account on in a big army in Age of Sigmar, especially since each faction tends to have different rules for what banners and musicians do. However, I found that after a couple games, you will have every rule in your army basically memorised, and so in practice it is much easier to remember and run your army's rules than in, say, 40k. Not having USPs helps a lot in this, since you do not need to flip between two books for one unit's rules. Of course, it does mean that there is not much consistency between units, meaning that it can be tough to remember what everything in the game does, but that is not such a big deal to me.
WHM has some basic differences when compared with AoS.
It has a tight rule set basically without gaps and loop holes, and there is well supported tournament format called steamroller.
There is no premeasuring allowed bar measuring the control zone of your caster.
Moreover, units activate serially. This requires different thinking.
These are two issues players have at the beginning when they come from GW games.
Kilkrazy wrote: My big disappointment in the FyreSlayers was that they didn't go far enough. I wanted their helmets actually to have (little scale model) flaming braziers in the top, not just horsehair crests.
Do you mean like the runemaster (Chaos Dwarf-ish dude from week 1 w/no moustache) holds in his staff? The fyreslayers all have their slayer mohawk coming from their helmets, so it's their own hair. My army is done with the Grimnir pic where his body is lava red and his mohawk and beard is actually fire. If I had bigger budget and the talent I'd find a way to make actual little jets of flame protruding from their heads that would not burn nor melt the plastic. Holograms maybe? Bah, oh well. They came together nicely as an army this weekend even if they were rush painted with only 10 pots of paint to choose from.
But modeling a smoking brazier like the runemaster has on the magmadroths is actually a pretty cool idea I may steal for magmadroth #2.
Yes, they should have a fiery bonfire brazier right on top of their helmets.
The Runemaster should have a pipestaff that uses fire and earth magic to reach down into the earth and tap a vein of magma, allowing him to shoot volcano lava and hot hail at the enemy.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, they should have a fiery bonfire brazier right on top of their helmets.
The Runemaster should have a pipestaff that uses fire and earth magic to reach down into the earth and tap a vein of magma, allowing him to shoot volcano lava and hot hail at the enemy.
hehe, I'm going to assume none of this is sarcastic The runemaster does that with Volcano's Call, and ability I'm getting way more mileage out of than I should as a psychout to keep enemy units off objective terrain and even direct them away from the volcano. In his hero phase Neckbeard runemaster picks any terrain piece within 20" and that turns to lava, any model one terrain or within 1" takes a mortal wound on a 6+. Then the terrain footprint itself is dangerous terrain until his next hero phase and anyone running, charging or ending on it dies outright on roll of 1. I killed a treelord with this once (guess his bark was a little too dry). But yeah, I like having their mohawks and beards be flaming jets coming out of their magma-like bodies
Not sarcastic at all. I really think AoS is meant to be epic fantasy on steroids and some of the models are turning out a bit pedestrian compared to what they could have been.
To me, the Fyre Slayers are just a bunch of nearly nude dwarves with Etruscan style helmets. They could have been so much more!
Volcano Call is a perfect rule to attach to the magma drill pole-staff I described. Or to put it differently, wouldn't it be more exciting for the Rune Master figure to equip a weapon that really embodies his magic attack rule?
Kilkrazy wrote: Not sarcastic at all. I really think AoS is meant to be epic fantasy on steroids and some of the models are turning out a bit pedestrian compared to what they could have been.
To me, the Fyre Slayers are just a bunch of nearly nude dwarves with Etruscan style helmets. They could have been so much more!
Volcano Call is a perfect rule to attach to the magma drill pole-staff I described. Or to put it differently, wouldn't it be more exciting for the Rune Master figure to equip a weapon that really embodies his magic attack rule?
Sitpaintandplay wrote: So as of late I've given warmachine a little love and watched some battle reports and I suddenly realized that it roughly is the same as AOS in some ways. The basics are cast spells in a hero phase, move your guys, get into combat with the enemy. (Yes I realize this is the basis of most war games) but when I went through and watched some reviews of AOS all anyone every talked about was how simple AOS had become. Yet this is basically the same concept between the two games but AOS gets so much hate? Why is that? Fill me in if I'm missing anything about warmachine that could change my opinion because I'm a little jaded against it.
It's not that AoS is simple, it's that AoS is shallow. You can have a simple game with tremendous depth but you can also have a predictable and obvious simpleton like AoS. Also, while I don't really like Warmachine and models wise I'd rather buy into AoS than something from there, as games AoS and Warmachine don't belong in the same sentence.
It's not that AoS is simple, it's that AoS is shallow.
I wouldn't go that far, but it isn't a super deep game. That's okay. It's deep enough. There's some skill involved in winning, but the randomness does somewhat even the odds for less skilled players. But there's enough decisions to be made at the micro and macro levels that you aren't bored. It's a fun game. It's not rocket science, but it is a pleasant enough way to pass the time.
But where AoS shines is in the variety of experiences you can have with it. There is a HUGE variety of rules, models, factions, scenarios, customizations - you never have to play the same game twice. It's not the same 4 builds in the one tournament scenario on the same flat and mostly empty table. And there's so many options that players can pick and choose their experiences and tailor it to their tastes, rather than just hoping their tastes line up with the one experience offered. Age of Sigmar is not deep, but it is as broad as the ocean. It's for the explorers.
No, AoS is not chess, the most genius tactica game,
but it might hide a certain curve, some haven`t discovered yet.
There's a very big difference between 'short, skimpy rules' and 'elegant, simple yet extremely in-depth' rules. Go for example, has virtually no rules, yet is one of the most sophisticated games in existance.
AoS meanwhile, pretty much is just 'roll a bunch of 4+s, mash your stuff together! No rules! Make your own'.
There is no room for depth there. None. Because depth is as much about what you disallow as it is what you allow. There is no secret sauce, because game design is quite a discrete craft as much as it is an art. 'No points' is by itself, not inherently bad. But combine it with the minimal options and barest framework for a game, and what you have is watered down beer and dollar store pretzels. Suggesting there's tactics in a game where no rules exist except what you decide with your opponent, and some 'non-rules' are so inherently broken as to make the game unplayable (my model for measurement? Bases have no physical presence? Infinite summoning?), then... well. That's more of an exercise in make-believe than a game then.
Comparing it to Warmachine? Sheesh. You can have your opinion on if you prefer Warmachine or not, but that's an actual game with depth and competitive balance.
With just a few tweaks it can be very tactical and playable - as demonstrated by the SCGT. The more AoS grows, the more I am quite happy for GW to leave the game in the hands of the community and focus instead on releasing great models, campaign books and boardgames.
No, AoS is not chess, the most genius tactica game,
but it might hide a certain curve, some haven`t discovered yet.
There's a very big difference between 'short, skimpy rules' and 'elegant, simple yet extremely in-depth' rules. Go for example, has virtually no rules, yet is one of the most sophisticated games in existance.
AoS meanwhile, pretty much is just 'roll a bunch of 4+s, mash your stuff together! No rules! Make your own'.
There is no room for depth there. None. Because depth is as much about what you disallow as it is what you allow. There is no secret sauce, because game design is quite a discrete craft as much as it is an art. 'No points' is by itself, not inherently bad. But combine it with the minimal options and barest framework for a game, and what you have is watered down beer and dollar store pretzels. Suggesting there's tactics in a game where no rules exist except what you decide with your opponent, and some 'non-rules' are so inherently broken as to make the game unplayable (my model for measurement? Bases have no physical presence? Infinite summoning?), then... well. That's more of an exercise in make-believe than a game then.
Comparing it to Warmachine? Sheesh. You can have your opinion on if you prefer Warmachine or not, but that's an actual game with depth and competitive balance.
If warmachine has so much competitive balance why are some models left on the shelf?
AoS meanwhile, pretty much is just 'roll a bunch of 4+s, mash your stuff together! No rules! Make your own'.
There is no room for depth there. None. Because depth is as much about what you disallow as it is what you allow. There is no secret sauce, because game design is quite a discrete craft as much as it is an art. 'No points' is by itself, not inherently bad. But combine it with the minimal options and barest framework for a game, and what you have is watered down beer and dollar store pretzels. Suggesting there's tactics in a game where no rules exist except what you decide with your opponent, and some 'non-rules' are so inherently broken as to make the game unplayable (my model for measurement? Bases have no physical presence? Infinite summoning?), then... well. That's more of an exercise in make-believe than a game then.
Age of Sigmar is not a particular deep game. It is a very broad game. And that's okay. Some people like that. You, obviously, do not. Luckily, we are not all beholden to your tastes and ideology. We can decide for ourselves. For some players, it's deep enough. It's tactical enough. It's playable enough.
Comparing it to Warmachine? Sheesh. You can have your opinion on if you prefer Warmachine or not, but that's an actual game with depth and competitive balance.
It is a game that has depth and competitive balance, but it is not a game because it has depth and competitive balance. It admirably succeeds in its goals for depth and competitive balance, but you should understand that other games may have different goals they strive for, that they admirably succeed at as well.
It's not that AoS is simple, it's that AoS is shallow.
I wouldn't go that far, but it isn't a super deep game. That's okay. It's deep enough. There's some skill involved in winning, but the randomness does somewhat even the odds for less skilled players. But there's enough decisions to be made at the micro and macro levels that you aren't bored. It's a fun game. It's not rocket science, but it is a pleasant enough way to pass the time.
Yes ofc there is skill involved, it's shallow vs your average tabletop wargame but still is a strategic game. I don't agree that it's deep enough but that's because I look at it as a wasted opportunity. GW free of the burden of army books, free to make rules without concern for breaking metas! With their decades of experience, I expected a damn good and very tactical game, simple yes but a mind burner. But yes it is good enough if you just want to pass the time, I have that with HoM&M series on PC, shallow but enjoyable for me at times.
Btw it's really good to see an AoS fan recognise that it's not a deep game. It's not a problem in itself after all but some people took that as an insult and argued the depth of an inverted T to death. It is a problem for me ofc and I hate it in the whole context but that's an entirely different discussion.
Idle curiosity, but what unit of measurement is 'depth' in a wargaming discussion?
Complexity or volume of rules?
Amount of decision making? Significance?
WMH may be the polar opposite of AoS in some ways, but that doesn't automatically mean it's "better".
For instance, if you're using terrain, scenario and time of War rules in AoS, then planning what you'll do *before* you set your minis up is kinda pointless because so much can happen in-game. The game's the important part.
From my experience, WMH is won or lost before either side has set up. The game becomes an exercise in positioning and sequences.
That to me isn't a 'better' or 'deeper' experience. It's programming with minis.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Sorry, just to clarify, I have enjoyed playing WMH in the past and I know for a lot of people it is 'their' game. But its goals are not the same as AoS. So judging one as objectively inferior or superior to the other is like arguing whether F1 or football is the better sport.
Kilkrazy wrote: Not sarcastic at all. I really think AoS is meant to be epic fantasy on steroids and some of the models are turning out a bit pedestrian compared to what they could have been.
To me, the Fyre Slayers are just a bunch of nearly nude dwarves with Etruscan style helmets. They could have been so much more!
Volcano Call is a perfect rule to attach to the magma drill pole-staff I described. Or to put it differently, wouldn't it be more exciting for the Rune Master figure to equip a weapon that really embodies his magic attack rule?
Please correct me if I'm interpreting this wrong but it sounds to me like you think his weapon would do the same function but the staff would be modeled to be a drill, possibly take a turn to draw magma in and fire next round? It seems like he already does what you are asking but just isn't sculpted with that weapon design. Perhaps I'm wrong But, I do think his handheld weapon is kinda lame and he has some presence which could have been better sculpted. I love painting and playing with them but fully admit the Fyreslayers vulkites and most characters could have been way way way better. But that's a diff discussion we've already had.
Now, if you are familiar with the Trollbloods rune shapers it would be cool to have his pose as making the rock and lava drawn up from the ground in the sculpt. That's the inspiration I have to do a second version of the runemaster when I'm home with all my hobby stuff
No, AoS is not chess, the most genius tactica game,
but it might hide a certain curve, some haven`t discovered yet.
There's a very big difference between 'short, skimpy rules' and 'elegant, simple yet extremely in-depth' rules. Go for example, has virtually no rules, yet is one of the most sophisticated games in existance.
AoS meanwhile, pretty much is just 'roll a bunch of 4+s, mash your stuff together! No rules! Make your own'.
There is no room for depth there. None. Because depth is as much about what you disallow as it is what you allow. There is no secret sauce, because game design is quite a discrete craft as much as it is an art. 'No points' is by itself, not inherently bad. But combine it with the minimal options and barest framework for a game, and what you have is watered down beer and dollar store pretzels. Suggesting there's tactics in a game where no rules exist except what you decide with your opponent, and some 'non-rules' are so inherently broken as to make the game unplayable (my model for measurement? Bases have no physical presence? Infinite summoning?), then... well. That's more of an exercise in make-believe than a game then.
Comparing it to Warmachine? Sheesh. You can have your opinion on if you prefer Warmachine or not, but that's an actual game with depth and competitive balance.
I find a surprising amount of syngery, tactics and depth when I play AoS now in events or at the club/store. It was a concern when it came out but until GW comes out with an updated version of the rules we go with a player-made comp system. Can't speak to AoS without any houreruling nor do I find that productive as, while they exist, my path comes across gamers who play AoS with a system. Games 1-3 after release in July were the push to middle mash-up you describe but then we got scenarios, realized that's how to play the game, and problem solved. Pre game: "Clash Comp, SCGT, Azyr?" "name one" "ok, X points?" done. Nothing more, because these systems already have the few very basic houserules, most importantly measure from base In WMH there's the objectives but personally i prefer the many more options in AoS scenarios which go beyond hold this objective and win/stop. But i like WMH still a lot, and was disappointed when AoS didn't provide a power attacks option where I get my headbutts and throws
Anyway, like WMH, AoS has ever changing synergy and combos with army which adjust to "the meta" and characters, much like warcasters or warlocks. No competitive system created like PP does for its game, and not sure I would want it to be honest, player-made ones are fine and my gut tells me would be better that what GW would make. Less restrictions on powers on the warscroll leave a lot of doors open .
Consistently, the people who have the hardest time imagining there can be any depth to AoS are people who haven't played it or possibly tried it once.
There's nothing wrong with straight up not liking the game after you've tried it, or even never being interested to try it. No game is for everyone. Warmachine appears to market itself to a very different gamer, and there's room for both in the world.
But trying to talk with authority about a game you have little to no experience with is a bit silly. And it's obvious when that's the case.
The people who have the hardest time theorizing about the game almost all come from the 8th ed/previous Warhammer mindset. They see the rules and make their own conclusion based on the paradigm in which they understand Warhammer. AoS changes that paradigm. It makes sense that so many people have trouble conceptually with it.
RoperPG wrote: Idle curiosity, but what unit of measurement is 'depth' in a wargaming discussion?
Complexity or volume of rules?
Amount of decision making? Significance?
...
....
To me it is the amount and complexity of decision making.
AoS is simpler and more limited in that respect than various other wargames. I'm not sufficiently motivated by that relatively low amount of involvement to spend the money and time to build up an army. I've already got 40K, which quite strongly resembles AoS.
I haven't played WHM and I've never been interested in it, but I've played loads of other games over the decades, so I've got a wide experience to make comparisons.
Plumbumbarum wrote: I played a thousand strategy games in my life, I can see a shallow game from a mile.
You are free to believe that AoS is a deep game though, I doubt I can really change your mind after discussing it multiple time already here.
@Roper how is AoS unpredictable? I hope you don't mean the randomness.
Exaggeration much?
I'm not stating that AoS is some insanely deep clash of minds, but it's not the throwaway experience a lot of people think. (See coldgaming's post above).
Of course random elements of the game add to unpredictability, that's a given.
What I've found is that the standardisation of hit/wound rolls toward the 4+/4+ everyone keeps bemoaning removes a number of 'dead cert' situations.
Yes, a Bloodthirster is *always* going to lay waste to a unit of basic infantry.
But charging a unit of cavalry or elite troops into a mob of grunts isn't the foregone conclusion it was in WFB, or is pretty much in WMH.
Yes, unit special rules will have effects, but the best you can hope for a lot of the time in AoS is "I'll do that this turn and see what happens".
That's the unpredictability. In WFB and WMH I've seen plenty of games where rolling the dice was pretty much a formality, AoS I've never been able to count on a unit to get a job done like I could in WFB. It's why I've found AoS plays a lot more reactively than stuff I've played before because you can't rely on your plan holding for more than a couple of turns at the absolute most.
The first half of my post was to mr. coldgaming, I hit reply next to hit post but when submitted, there were 2 new posts between already. Sorry.
Predictability is about decisions, not outcomes. Ofc excessive randomness can make your best choice go bonkers bad but still it was probably obvious what it was.
As for Warmachine, I think it's the meta that is predictable not the game itself. Imagine starting fresh with it now without access to meta knowledge, how much more skill it would take both pre game and in game to play good vs AoS.
RoperPG wrote: Idle curiosity, but what unit of measurement is 'depth' in a wargaming discussion?
Complexity or volume of rules?
Amount of decision making? Significance?
If you look at a game as a series of decisions, you can graph these decisions as a tree structure. These tree structures have both breadth (how wide they are) and depth (how deep they go). Or, to put it more succinctly, a game's breadth is the number of choices available to you while a game's depth is how much it affects the game state down the line. Chess, for example, is considered an extremely deep game because of the huge number of game states that each choice creates or eliminates. Age of Sigmar is a broad game because of the huge number of choices available with regards to creating each scenario, even though the choices are largely not that meaningful.
Warmachine is a game that attempts to be both wide (lots of options) and deep (importance of options), but that rarely works out in practice. When there are a lot of important options, it usually turns out that some options are more important than others, creating a dominant strategy - that is, a choice which is objectively superior to another choice. When a choice becomes obvious, it ceases to be a choice. The end result is that even though Warmachine technically has a bunch of branches available, only a limited subset of those choices become viable strategies. The less fruitful branches are effectively pruned. In my opinion, Warmachine has far too few fruitful choices available, with specific scenarios, builds, and tactics becoming dominant choices that ultimately remove much needed breadth from the game.
There is also the complication that with broad trees, people who seek mastery of the system are faced with too many meaningful choices and they seek to intentionally reduce the problem set to something more manageable. With everything you have to know and remember about Warmachine and its various strategies, just playing Steamroller rules has a rather unmanageable choice graph. But if you factor in that the graph basically doubles if you also play a second scenario (like Heavy Metal, jacks only), with a completely different set of choice pressures (certain tactics stop working, others change in effectiveness, new tactics appear), then you end up with something completely unwieldy. This is why many Warmachine players self-impose limitations on the breadth of the game in order to make it manageable (also known as "the meta").
Age of Sigmar is a breadth-first game, which means that while it has mostly shallow decisions to make, it has an epic ton of them. A shallow decision is fine to make once or twice, but it can become tedious to keep making it. Thankfully, in Age of Sigmar, you never have to make the same decision twice. There are so many options with regard to how to you build the game that variety is enough to keep the game interesting for years or decades. I'm actually reminded of the board game Super Dungeon Explore, which has the reputation that the game is only replayable if you keep buying new expansions to keep it fresh. The problem with AoS, for some players, is that because the decisions are largely shallow, there is simply less to master about the game, and some people would prefer to pick one army and one strategy and focus on that - which is going to be unsatisfying for the reasons listed.
Note though that I said that Age of Sigmar has "mostly" shallow decisions to make. There are a bunch of decisions which are quite deep indeed, and I don't think AoS gets nearly enough credit for them. But AoS is rather selective about when it decides to be deep and most certainly has chosen breadth as its focus over depth.
Great response on what the meta does. Thank you. Thats exactly my problem with the meta as well.
With games like WM or WHFB or 40k, players take the decision tree, as you have shown, and trim it down to the most obvious choices and replay those over and over for years. It is the main reason I got out of wargaming for a while from 2007 - 2010 - WHFB was my main game and every game seemed to be for the most part the same with minor variance because the meta kept the decision structures as slim as possible and wanted to stick with that.
Its also why a lot of people where I am were so against doing anything other than Battleline. They had mastered battleline, they had an army that was good at Battleline and they weren't interested in having to master another scenario. The end result was years of nothing but Battleline over and over again.
Of course random elements of the game add to unpredictability, that's a given.
What I've found is that the standardisation of hit/wound rolls toward the 4+/4+ everyone keeps bemoaning removes a number of 'dead cert' situations.
Yes, a Bloodthirster is *always* going to lay waste to a unit of basic infantry.
But charging a unit of cavalry or elite troops into a mob of grunts isn't the foregone conclusion it was in WFB, or is pretty much in WMH.
Yes, unit special rules will have effects, but the best you can hope for a lot of the time in AoS is "I'll do that this turn and see what happens".
That's the unpredictability. In WFB and WMH I've seen plenty of games where rolling the dice was pretty much a formality, AoS I've never been able to count on a unit to get a job done like I could in WFB. It's why I've found AoS plays a lot more reactively than stuff I've played before because you can't rely on your plan holding for more than a couple of turns at the absolute most.
With regard to randomness, it's effect on the decision tree is rather interesting. What it does is increase breadth by decreasing depth. That is, it increases the number and complexity of the choices available to you (you now have performing an action, almost performing an action, and failing an action, all resulting in different game states, with the percentage chance of happening allowing you to decide how much emphasis to give to each possibility). However, because it makes the game non-deterministic, it becomes impossible to predict the game state the further into the predictive future you go. You can guess what you're opponent will do in the next turn, but not in three or four turns.
The end result is that Age of Sigmar is more tactical than strategic, more reactionary. You are concerned less about achieving goals, and more concerned about moving towards the direction of achieving goals. To quote Al Pacino from Any Given Sunday, it's a game of inches. Perhaps literally as well.
After many games trying different unit types vs. an array of enemy types I've found that the fixed hit and wound is actually a much more enjoyable part of the game go remove part of the forgone conclusion as stated above. But, it works with what I find to be the most enjoyable new part of AoS which Warhammer did not have on nearly the synergy, buffs and debuffs. Had a great example of this over the weekend but I'll just grab the best example, though this happened in every game. Archaon and his posse in 8th would and should have run rampant over my army of slayers. Let's just say it was a dwarf list with only slayers and slayer characters. The opponent does his homework and is prepared for the obvious big challengers especially if he is competing for best overall. Because of the heroes and unit abilities for better resilience the more models are in the units his might, even at full throttle directing everything at one of the targets facing him the battle change and the basic inspiring presence of no battleshock is like the former unbreakabke rule. Now after I remind him how to take away these buffs he has to commit troops, change battle plan of scoring objectives, etc. Were this 8th we both and spectators know it should have been in the bag. But in the assurances of overwhelming power the reality of play was a shock. My army had no prayer vs, his in a straight up battle line but with scenario rules, terrain, objectives and varying combinations between troops and characters it was a completely different, and exciting for both sides, story.
KiloFiX wrote: As others have said - AoS forces you to have backup plans and to react.
With WFB, I could have written a list, given my kid brother my models and some basic instructions, and he would have been competitive.
You never needed backup plans in WHFB? Never failed a surefire Leadership test or had your combat troops eaten alive by archers in melee? Never misjudged a distance (or got a poor charge roll in 8th edition) that left your unit able to be charged?
I dunno, I played a goblin horde so I needed at least three contingencies at any given moment, but this seems like a bit of an exaggeration. You don't need to let your opponent have a surprise extra round of combat for things to go wrong.
Need back ups in any game it was commonly refereed to in 8th (and other game systems as well) as Rock Paper Scissors matches or lists. Hell, local WMH players use that.
7th was definitely more "scripted" in that after deployment was finished but before the first turn, any one with any length of experience with the game could tell you the likely decisions that were going to be made, the statistical probability of said decisions and the likely outcome with a high degree of accuracy.
So when I say "scripted" I mean often after deployment finished and you knew the entire set of forces on the table you knew how the game was going to play out and barring wildly hot or cold dice knew the end result.
8th was also sort of like this but had more random elements in it which made it a bit more unpredictable (and is why I liked it much better over 7th because the games seemed less scripted) but it also had its "meta" and you knew before the game started what you'd likely face given the army selection of your opponent, and the game was going to play out similarly to most games with the exception that the dice had much more of an impact, so you had to have some backup plans in place whereas in 7th edition that was largely unnecessary again barring wildly swingy dice.
Much like chess patterns. Knight moves here, you know to counter with bishop here, and then you know opponent will move rook to check there and you should counter with this etc etc until someone makes a mistake.
Those games are fun for a lot of people but I'm not one of those people (I do play chess, and enjoy chess for what it is but I don't want all of my games like that)
But I also use tabletop wargaming to tell stories and thats why my perspective is what it is.
In any version of WHFB, lists were a huge thing, just like 40k. The army list would often win the game for you because people play to extremes and so it was indeed paper/rock/scissors much of the time and 40k is this much of the time today as well.
8th I found very tactical because of movement shenanigans and, well, abuse of the movement phase rules. Meta says X deathstar should beat me, but it won't if the entire game it is trying to move it's way around my 3 units of 5 wolves that keep blocking it's charge lanes and angle themselves so that the deathstar's back will be to my hammer units if it does charge and overrun the wolves.
40k I consider to be tactically shallow because way too much of it comes down to target priority. Whatever you shoot at you're hitting on 3s, so all you need to do is pick out the unit that whatever gun you're holding will kill most efficiently, or pick out the unit most capable of killing you back. Movement is irrelevant except for moving into range of your target and taking objectives.
AoS when I was demo'd it felt very much like the latter, moving forwards at each other with flanks/facing/positioning being relatively unimportant.
jonolikespie wrote: 8th I found very tactical because of movement shenanigans and, well, abuse of the movement phase rules. Meta says X deathstar should beat me, but it won't if the entire game it is trying to move it's way around my 3 units of 5 wolves that keep blocking it's charge lanes and angle themselves so that the deathstar's back will be to my hammer units if it does charge and overrun the wolves.
RoperPG wrote: Idle curiosity, but what unit of measurement is 'depth' in a wargaming discussion?
Complexity or volume of rules?
Amount of decision making? Significance?
If you look at a game as a series of decisions, you can graph these decisions as a tree structure. These tree structures have both breadth (how wide they are) and depth (how deep they go). Or, to put it more succinctly, a game's breadth is the number of choices available to you while a game's depth is how much it affects the game state down the line. Chess, for example, is considered an extremely deep game because of the huge number of game states that each choice creates or eliminates. Age of Sigmar is a broad game because of the huge number of choices available with regards to creating each scenario, even though the choices are largely not that meaningful.
Warmachine is a game that attempts to be both wide (lots of options) and deep (importance of options), but that rarely works out in practice. When there are a lot of important options, it usually turns out that some options are more important than others, creating a dominant strategy - that is, a choice which is objectively superior to another choice. When a choice becomes obvious, it ceases to be a choice. The end result is that even though Warmachine technically has a bunch of branches available, only a limited subset of those choices become viable strategies. The less fruitful branches are effectively pruned. In my opinion, Warmachine has far too few fruitful choices available, with specific scenarios, builds, and tactics becoming dominant choices that ultimately remove much needed breadth from the game.
There is also the complication that with broad trees, people who seek mastery of the system are faced with too many meaningful choices and they seek to intentionally reduce the problem set to something more manageable. With everything you have to know and remember about Warmachine and its various strategies, just playing Steamroller rules has a rather unmanageable choice graph. But if you factor in that the graph basically doubles if you also play a second scenario (like Heavy Metal, jacks only), with a completely different set of choice pressures (certain tactics stop working, others change in effectiveness, new tactics appear), then you end up with something completely unwieldy. This is why many Warmachine players self-impose limitations on the breadth of the game in order to make it manageable (also known as "the meta").
Age of Sigmar is a breadth-first game, which means that while it has mostly shallow decisions to make, it has an epic ton of them. A shallow decision is fine to make once or twice, but it can become tedious to keep making it. Thankfully, in Age of Sigmar, you never have to make the same decision twice. There are so many options with regard to how to you build the game that variety is enough to keep the game interesting for years or decades. I'm actually reminded of the board game Super Dungeon Explore, which has the reputation that the game is only replayable if you keep buying new expansions to keep it fresh. The problem with AoS, for some players, is that because the decisions are largely shallow, there is simply less to master about the game, and some people would prefer to pick one army and one strategy and focus on that - which is going to be unsatisfying for the reasons listed.
Note though that I said that Age of Sigmar has "mostly" shallow decisions to make. There are a bunch of decisions which are quite deep indeed, and I don't think AoS gets nearly enough credit for them. But AoS is rather selective about when it decides to be deep and most certainly has chosen breadth as its focus over depth.
Good post.
As for Warmachine though, before the dominant strategy emerges, you have to figure it out, not to mention that the deeper the ruleset, the more the chance that there is something better to do waiting to be discovered.
Also changing scenarios/ lists/ terrain is key, it's not the game's fault that players choose to limit themselves and noone says you have to as well. My gaming circle flat out refuses to play the same battle twice and the conditions constantly change ( in general mind you not particularly wm), I would like to switch sides sometimes to check the balance but it's rare that it happens.
It is like playing only one mission in Space Hulk and complaining it got predictable, you just don't do that.
Of course random elements of the game add to unpredictability, that's a given.
What I've found is that the standardisation of hit/wound rolls toward the 4+/4+ everyone keeps bemoaning removes a number of 'dead cert' situations.
Yes, a Bloodthirster is *always* going to lay waste to a unit of basic infantry.
But charging a unit of cavalry or elite troops into a mob of grunts isn't the foregone conclusion it was in WFB, or is pretty much in WMH.
Yes, unit special rules will have effects, but the best you can hope for a lot of the time in AoS is "I'll do that this turn and see what happens".
That's the unpredictability. In WFB and WMH I've seen plenty of games where rolling the dice was pretty much a formality, AoS I've never been able to count on a unit to get a job done like I could in WFB. It's why I've found AoS plays a lot more reactively than stuff I've played before because you can't rely on your plan holding for more than a couple of turns at the absolute most.
With regard to randomness, it's effect on the decision tree is rather interesting. What it does is increase breadth by decreasing depth. That is, it increases the number and complexity of the choices available to you (you now have performing an action, almost performing an action, and failing an action, all resulting in different game states, with the percentage chance of happening allowing you to decide how much emphasis to give to each possibility). However, because it makes the game non-deterministic, it becomes impossible to predict the game state the further into the predictive future you go. You can guess what you're opponent will do in the next turn, but not in three or four turns.
The end result is that Age of Sigmar is more tactical than strategic, more reactionary. You are concerned less about achieving goals, and more concerned about moving towards the direction of achieving goals. To quote Al Pacino from Any Given Sunday, it's a game of inches. Perhaps literally as well.
While randomness can indeed shift the weight from list building to the table, excessive use of it ruins both. Also in the more reactionary game, it's still good to have deep mechanics, something that AoS fails at. You make rather simple decisions, randomness shakes it up and you have to react with another simple decision.
ing coretax). Not to mention the daunting (and expensive) tome.
