Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Back from a short absence, and it's heartwarming to know that the same debates are still being passionately fought

 Spinner wrote:
I can see that happening. What I can't see is a group of nearby Terminators spraying down the area with storm bolter (or...boltstormer... ) fire while their battle-brothers are engaged in a swirling, frantic melee with a mob of frenzied orks without causing a massive friendly fire incident. If you're going to have shooting in or into melee, there needs to be a chance to account for accidentally hitting an ally, and it's really immersion breaking when there isn't.

Presumably, fantasy battles are using slow firing weapons like crossbows and muskets where the "spray and pray" approach to ranged combat doesn't apply. When it takes you up to a minute to load each missle, you'll take the extra few seconds to aim before shooting. The balancing factor to ranged attacks is that they happen one per round, rather than up to four times per round like melee attacks.

That one's a little unfair, I think it's reasonably clear that he's talking about the lack of a balancing system. Whether you want one or not is a matter of debate, I guess - although I think it's odd that it never was before Age of Sigmar showed up. The fact remains that you have to eyeball out whether or not forces are evenly matched, and that can lead to a few frustrating games before you find the right general area.

In practice, it isn't nearly as much a problem as people make it out to be. In general, large power differences are easy to spot and somewhat imbalanced battles are still enjoyable to play where the advantage swings back and forth multiple times. So obsessing over balance is more of a mental hang up than a serious threat to the long term enjoyment of playing.

 Spinner wrote:

Genuinely curious - would you mind mocking up a few balanced against each other armies for me, then? Preferably with as much variation as possible; goblins, ogres, the odd lizardman army, so on and so forth. Just so I could see what you'd consider fairly evenly matched. If you don't have the time or inclination, that's totally understandable, I'd just like to get your perspective on that.

That's a lot of effort for something that has exactly zero chance of changing your views. I feel like if you let go of the concept of "balance", you'll have a good time of Age of Sigmar. The game itself isn't broken, just the game while holding a certain perspective. It's not something I can prove (or would bother to try, as AoS opposition refuses to cede ground on any point, EVER, like a flat earth creationist debating an evolutionary biologist), but I have fun with AoS and I think my expectations are in line with the design philosophy behind it, and maybe that's why I can enjoy it as much as I do while others only see red. As long as I felt like I played a good game, it doesn't matter to me who begins with what advantage or disadvantage, or ultimately who won. Some of the best games I've ever played, I never had a chance of winning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
It shouldn't be up to the player base to design the damn game, it's up to the designers to design the thing.

I know! Nintendo just released Mario Maker. They expect players to make their own Mario levels... like fething savages. And don't get me started on Minecraft. What the hell are you supposed to do in that game? And geez, Counter-Strike and DotA started as mods, so obviously player contributions to gaming are unnecessary and unwanted. Leave it to the professionals, I say!

Every single player ever, goes into a game with the intention of completing it. Hopefully by winning. You don't play a PlayStation game to not finish the game, you play because you want to get to the end and beat it.

Nah. Some of my favorite games, I've never come close to winning or literally cannot win. There are a lot of reasons to play games, and I wouldn't say that any one of them is the right way to do it.

Jack Flask wrote:

Its like going to a biology conference only to have some guy show up in the back, banging pots and yelling "feth evolution it offends my religion", who then cites freedom of speech as justification for being a massive gakker. It pisses off everyone their to engage in something they're interested in, and it makes the other side of the conversation look bad.

It's more like Boo Ben Konop. Pro-AoS posters are just trying to have a conversation and discuss something they honestly enjoy and EVERY THREAD becomes "Boo. Boo Age of Sigmar."

"Here's a lot of things that I like and enjoy about..."
"Boo. Boo Age of Sigmar"
"But I really do like it and I think..."
"Boo. Boo Age of Sigmar"
"That's unfair. I really would..."
"Boo. Boo Age of Sigmar. Boo."
"Are you done?"
"..."
"Okay, let's talk about..."
"Boo. Boo Age of Sigmar."

I found it exhausting and left for a while because it got tiring having to defend EVERY. SINGLE. COMMENT. It doesn't matter if it was something like "Age of Sigmar is a game". Then it's like "No it isn't." This place is basically the dead parrot sketch, except we're the customers trying to explain that the parrot isn't dead. "Yes it is."

At this point, I realize that nobody is going to be convinced of anything, and I'd just be happy to sit and discuss the game with like minded people with being interrup... "Boo. Boo Age of Sigmar. Boo."

If everyone who said "it could be better" sat down and designed AoS it would have basically nothing that makes the game what it is.

That's exactly it. It isn't that Age of Simar is flawed, it's that what it is, some people don't like. I think it is a novel approach to playin... "Boo. Boo Age of Sigmar."

Herzlos wrote:

It is just stupid to stack models on top of one another
Yes it is. But it does not happen in Age of Sigmar.

The rules imply it does?

Bases are ignored for the purposes of measuring ranges. That is all.

Yup, and ranges are measured figure to figure, so the only way various combats work is to either overlap bases, or to pretend they are closer than they are.

The rules imply no such thing. This is a case of taking an extreme edge case and presenting it as more common than it actually happens. Most of the models, and especially the newer AoS-specific ones, do not have problems with this, and in the extreme edge cases, we always have common sense and The Most Important Rule to settle disputes. For instance, I would have no problem at all measuring from the bases for melee ranges (1/2") - I think most of the time, it's pretty darn obvious which units are in melee and which ones aren't. And the threat bubble of 3" around each model - since you can't move into that bubble except to charge into melee, and they can't move into yours, it should be obvious which units are within the bubble and which ones aren't just based on their last movement.

The *point* of Minecraft is to make things, and the Mario Maker lets you create new levels for a platform game to enhance it. With AoS, a lot of the effort is completely unrelated to the core point of the game - to play the game. Some people like writing rules/scenarios, but why would they choose to do it with AoS over literally any other tabletop game?

I think the point of AoS IS to make things. AoS is the most modular game system I've seen in a long time, with very few restrictions on what can be used where and how. Off the top of my head, you've got:

The 4 Page Rules
Scenarios
Warscrolls (many of which have multiple variants)
Battalion Scrolls
Scenery Warscrolls
Battlefield Time of War Rules

And with few exceptions, you can mix and match ANY of those together. You can take most of the Scenarios and use them with most of the terrain scenery, with whatever army and make up you want. It is BEGGING for the players to create unique combinations to create the gaming experiences that appeals to them. Play in the Realm of Azyr with an Stormcast army using the Devastation Brotherhood battalion, fighting through a battlefield filled with giant skull towers and ruins that come alive and eat people. I love the modular aspect of the game, which makes creating new scenarios easier and more creative. Every new release creates more options. Each new book has new (optional) rules and battalions. Each new scenery adds new rules. Each new unit or faction adds new rules. The options grow, but unlike something like Warmachine which has very specific builds and counter-builds, you actually have more possibilities, not less.

But that's just my opinion. I like that aspect, a lot, and... "Boo. Boo Age of Sigmar. Boo."

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
What good are awesome-looking miniatures if I don't want to play the game they are specifically made for?

AoS has rules. Some people like them, some don't. AoS has miniatures. Some people like them, some don't. I would assume that Age of Sigmar, as a miniature ecosystem, is probably the overlapping section of people who both like the rules and like the miniatures. Therefore, if you are outside of that overlapping sections, or indeed outside of either or both of the circles, it is fair to assume that Age of Sigmar is not made for you.

The question then is, if your personal opinion is the problem here, what can you do about it?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

- Where are people having polite, "grown up" conversations about AoS?

The Reddit group is pretty civil and I hear there is a Facebook group (no FB account, so I haven't seen it), but most of the communities I've found have just been a bunch of grumpy grognards taking turns insulting AoS and AoS fans.

I still have hope for this community. Despite the "Boo. Boo Age of Sigmar. Boo." derailments, there are several posters here who positively contribute and discuss the game. I mean, every thread gets derailed, but almost all of them start from a positive contribution... unlike Warseer.

Deadnight wrote:
I seem to remember that thread, and the reason is was locked had to do with you being just as passive aggressive and nasty. I recall you referred to those who disliked aos as 'toolbags', amongst others.

And by the way, you call for grown up conversations but Dismiss the negative opinions as 'spam'. You don't get to do that. Grown up conversations dont work that way.

In his defense, he isn't the only person who has been complaining about it and it is EXTREMELY annoying, to the point where I left this forum for over a month because I had a hard time remaining civil in the face of constant "Boo. Boo Age of Sigmar. Boo."

There's having opinions and there's having discussions, and this forum doesn't do a lot to differentiate the two. Personally, I think that when you derail a discussion by espousing your opinion, you aren't contributing anything except your own masturbatory need for attention at any cost.

Kilkrazy wrote:We've got a thread about people liking AoS and telling each other how they like it.

A WHOLE thread! Score!

At this point, I don't think Age of Sigmar is misunderstood. It is simply hated because of misplaced nerdrage.

It's like the Star Wars prequels. There is pretty much no place on the internet where the sentiment "I thought they were pretty good" won't instantly result in a hundred people trying to explain to you, at length, what a complete hack George Lucas is and how he ruined Star Wars forever with Jar Jar. All that time and energy that could be spent talking about movies you do like, but it is wasted complaining about the prequels because for some reason, whatever George Lucas did was the Worst Thing Ever, and you must let people know because even though everybody already agrees with you and nobody actually cares what you, personally, think about Attack of the Clones, your anguish must be heard! It is proof of your... um... having opinions?

Actually, I'm don't really understand the nerdrage. I rather liked the prequels. They weren't perfect - they had flaws, I admit - but they are a fun time and there's no other experience quite like it. It took some time, but the story issues were eventually worked out, and if you want it, there are fan versions which fix the most egregious problems. I know people had certain expectations for what the movies were going to be or should've been, but they are what they are, and it has always seemed silly to me to hold a grudge over what something isn't rather than over what it is. Just like it is okay to like something different, it is okay to dislike something as well, but holding onto a petty grudge for weeks, months, years, and decades seems like it can't really be healthy. Surely, one can not find happiness by wallowing in negativity...

Age of Sigmar will become like the Star Wars prequels. Twenty years from now, it will still sell and be popular with those who don't care what others think, but there will still be a cadre of nerds that consider themselves the biggest, most informed fans acting on the most irrational negativity, gaining only bitterness for their efforts.

There's no middle ground here. There's no explaining misconceptions. There's no differing perspective that will be heard. Because this isn't actually about Age of Sigmar, and it never was. This is about grievances unchecked, and there's never going to be the closure that some people need to move on.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Or a fourth group. People that understand what the game is and don't like it for what it is. Sometimes people legitimately don't like something.
I get AOS. Read through the rules, the books, the scrolls. I do get it.

You've just read through the rules? You haven't actually played it? Reminds me of an an article (NSFW) I read recently...

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Amazingly enough, some people do know themselves well enough to know in advance what kind of game they will or will not like...

So you haven't played it either?

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

I have indeed played it a couple of times to test the system for myself, though I admit I was already biased against it when I tried it, When I tried it out I found far too many things lacking. I just wanted to test it for myself to confirm a few things I was already suspecting (model interaction and model-to-model balance issues, mostly).

So... confirmation bias, then? People see what they want to see, and there's no easy defense for that, but don't go around pretending that your opinion is objective and informed when it is histrionic and preconceived.

I think the first post to this thread was about clearing up misconceptions about AoS precisely to combat confirmation bias. He is literally saying, "this is what you expect, but really, it's like this". It won't work, obviously, but good on him for trying to convince others by talking about the actual game itself, which he has played many times, rather than comparing it to different games, complaining about rules he's never tried, or dwelling in a biased theoretical bubble with no basis in reality.

I do, however, understand that a player can simply look at the rules, fluff and/or overall aesthetics of any given game and understand that that game is not meant for them without even playing a match - it's happened to me before a couple of times (with Dreadfleet, for instance).

Yes, this is possible. But that isn't what is going on here. Someone who simply realizes that a game isn't for them doesn't then spend months complaining about it. And MWHistorian has spent MONTHS complaining about this game, almost daily as near as I can tell. That is someone who obviously feels strongly about something, and I don't think it is fair to anybody, himself especially, to feel that strongly without having any practical experience on the subject. It's like a child who won't eat broccoli without tasting it, only in this situation, nobody is actually making him eat his broccoli. He's going over to other kids who are eating, and enjoying, their broccoli and going, "What the feth is wrong with you?"

Personally, I find Mordheim to be a far superior skirmish game to AoS, so that will still be my go to game if I want to play a fantasy Skirmish game. I also find it ironic, to say the least, that it was made by the very same company that has made AoS, fits into the same "game type slot", but still manages to scratch all my itches, so to say.

Age of Sigmar is not Mordheim. It's not WHFB either. It isn't Warmachine or 40k or Infinity or anything else. It is its own thing, going its own way, and yet people seem to expect it to apologize for it. I just don't understand the need to tell people that play and enjoy Age of Sigmar that you'd rather play something else, frequently and at length. You're like Comic Book Guy sitting there repeating "Worst. Game. Ever." as you watch other people play.

MWHistorian wrote:I haven't played it because after reading the rules and all the other stuff, I didn't like the style of game, the aesthetics, the core concept and what little fluff there was. Not everything is for everybody.

That's perfectly fine. So why are you here, month after month, complaining about it? Literally no one in this forum does not already know your opinion on Age of Sigmar and your contributions to each thread rarely amount to more than "I don't like thing" these days. What do YOU get out of such behavior?

Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:The thing is, for MWHistorian (just like with me) the grievance is past the game system. As I have stated before (I think it was in a different thread but I can't remember where) I could even try to stomach AoS as it is (even if I prefer Mordheim) if they hadn't destroyed the setting itself so utterly. But they did.

So you admit that you are biased as hell and that your grievances have little to do with the game itself. So why continue to bash the game, especially given that you've admitted that you haven't given the game a fair shake and that you are really angry at something else? Does that sound like a well adjusted person to you?

Call it being butthurt, call it being unable to cope with change or moving on, but for some of the WHFB crowd - me included -, decades of immersion and involvement in a setting do leave their mark, and GW's brand is no longer enough to make us follow like the mice in the Pan Piper of Hamelin - the sweet music isn't there anymore. And, like good plastic cracks addicts in withdrawal, we are angry and lashing out at the reason why FB was so utterly destroyed - AoS.

But AoS isn't the reason WHFB was destroyed. It's more like the phoenix that rose from WHFB's ashes. Regardless of what they think about AoS, pretty much everybody agrees that WHFB was dying or dead long before it was killed. Even then, here's the world's tiniest violin playing for you. Find whatever closure you need to move on, then do it. Personally, I think giving AoS a fair chance and potentially coming to enjoy it is the best closure you'll ever get.

Now... is it unfair on the AoS crowd? I am sure it is, but in the end ALL of this is collateral damage - this is "just" fallout from GW's decision. I would like to ask you this - would you have any issues with MWHistorian or me say... about two years ago?

I don't have a problem with either of you now. The reason why MWHistorian isn't on my ignore list, but Swastakowey is, is because he can (occasionally) contribute to a discussion. It seems to be happening less and less as the same tired arguments are repeated over and over again. I think we are ALL tired of this happening, but neither side seems to be walking away. My end game is to be able to talk about a miniatures game that I actually enjoy among others who share my passion (but not always my opinions) on a forum dedicated to discussions about the game - and seeing how rare this is for AoS and the quality of some of the posters here, it seems like Dakka is a better place to aim for it than most. What's your end game?

But regardless and yet again - this is a public forum and people are free to post their opinions even if they are divergent. If you have any problem with what people who dislike AoS are saying, report us to the Mods. Feel free to do it now, to this very post, if you want - label it as Harassment. I leave myself to the Mods' mercy. Until then, this endless circle will continue.

With all due respect, whenever you resort to the "it's a free country and if you don't like it, tell on me" defense, you've pretty much admitted you are trolling. There's this fine line that trolls walk that skirts the edge of bannable, but never quite crosses it, but becomes rather obvious when they basically dare you to force them to shut up. That's the mark of someone who knows they are unwanted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kenofyork wrote:
I find the game totally uninspiring. If I buy a car I would like it to be well designed and work. Sigmar is like buying a kit car. Sure it could be nice if I spent the time to fully assemble and fix it. Driving the car as delivered is impossible. Playing the Sigmar rules as written is impossible. Dump your collection on the table and go for it? Are they aware some of us have been collecting for decades?

Age of Sigmar, and indeed all miniature games, are hobbies. You don't get assembled and painted figures. You get pieces and you glue together. You can even get upgrade kits or alternate weapons to customize your models. You then get to paint them in any manner of your choosing. You have to build your own tables and place your own terrain. AoS just applies this philosophy to the game rules as well.

 mugginns wrote:

It was injured, for sure, but could have been saved. Instead they shoved it off the fourth floor window and all their customers with it. Most people are aiming for closure by playing other games.

First, I don't think WHFB could be saved. I think that it had its fans, but I think it would've been an uphill battle gaining new ones. It's kind of like MMOs. Over time, they hemorrhage players. Every expansion pack brings back new players, but less and less each time. After a while, the number of players who come back are less than the number of players who leave, and the game (as a service) enters the downward spiral where releases and updates are fewer, staff are moved to other projects, and you basically have a skeleton crew trying to keep what few players still there happy. Eventually, they just close the servers. Once a MMO reaches "maintenance mode", it is very rare for it to ever bounce back and become popular.

Or, to put it in terms of WHFB, they could maintain the game with the players that remained (many of which were older than 40) but they could not grow it again without a major investment - and even then, it would likely only buy a few more years before it went into maintenance mode again. So they had two options. They could launch a sequel, which could allow them to appeal to new players and keep the old players around (which they did, and it didn't work), or they could move outside of their tightly controlled distribution system to reach a wider audience, which wouldn't work because of the hobby aspect. If they wanted to gain new players, they would need to release cheaper figures in places like Barnes and Nobles that were probably pre-assembled and pre-painted (meaning they'd compete against X-Wing Miniatures, which would also anger FFG who does all of GW's board games).

Frankly, launching a sequel to WHFB was a good idea because it did draw new blood (like me) who preferred skirmish systems and were drawn to the idea of a new miniatures game with heavy support, but which didn't have 30 years of baggage with it. Starting a new universe where they could slowly reintroduce older characters and races kept me from being overwhelmed - I look at 40k, and while I love some of the models and would love to play it, I have absolutely NO idea how to start the game. I thought the rumored Horus Heresy starter set would be a good chance to jump in, but now the rumors are saying that it is even more complicated than 40k and presumably would be more difficult to get outside of the Forge World online store.

Anyway, I'm saying WHFB probably couldn't have been saved. It was in maintenance mode, and to a company that answers to investors, the ability to get out of it quickly and cheaply was probably impossible. So they chose the option which they thought (mistakenly, I guess) would gain new players while keeping the old ones invested. All your models work in the new game. They assumed that it was the models the players were attached to rather than the rules - which was probably a fair assumption at the time.

And second, playing another game isn't closure. It's a rebound. It's like dating a girl who looks like your ex-girlfriend.

 mugginns wrote:

Or they could make the game more affordable, offer a skirmish mode as introduction to the real game, and offer actual support for the game.

Making the game affordable and better support would make existing players happy - it wouldn't bring in new players. The miniature games market is relatively small, and absolutely dominated by Games Workshop. It's fair to say that anybody who plays miniature games already knows what WHFB is and if they aren't playing it, made the decision to not play it. Since 40k is doing well, price is obviously not the objection. Even then, GW does have stuff like Island of Blood which has small skirmishes for a (more) reasonable price, but my guess is that it wasn't selling as well as Dark Vengeance or it wasn't causing players to further invest after the starter box.

And get rid of the existing fanbase who did like the '30 years of baggage' as well as the way the game was played.

But they didn't get rid of the baggage. It's all there and the way the AoS universe is set up, almost all of it could potentially come back at some point. It's just not relevant to the initial release of the game.

For instance, it appears that AoS will get another release window in December, which some people are saying will be two new factions for Order and Chaos. If they introduce the Dwarves, for example, it will undoubtedly come with the backstory of what happened between End Times and Age of Sigmar. And then, part of the Old World mythology will be connected with the AoS mythology, bridging the two. If it feels like everything from the Old World is gone, it's only because they are taking their time introducing the new factions and explaining where they went.

To someone like me, not having the backstory for the Dwarves initially allows me to focus on the world and main conflict of the AoS time period. Introducing each race slowly gives me time to acclimate to their own individual heroes, stories, and purpose without overwhelming me with 30 years of history all at once. And I get that it must seem frustrating to feel like you've lose that universe - but you haven't. Just learn a little patience and at least make it to the next release window and see what happens.

Deadnight wrote:

Why not? Considering it was the start up price and shoddy rules that drove so many away...

Miniatures are an expensive hobby, especially when starting out. Buying a starter box, at the very minimum, you need to get the polystyrene glue and clippers/hobby knife (or both, ideally). It took me about 9 hours to put together my Age of Sigmar box of 48 models. That's before you can even play the game. If you want to paint your figures (and unless you are a Warmachine player, you probably do), that's going to be about $100 in paints and tools, and possibly a hundred hours or more or painting.

Basically, before you've ever bought a second box of figures, you've had to decide whether it is worth the time and money investment to commit fully to the hobby. So I'm guessing that the starter boxes for WHFB don't do a real great job of selling the hobby to a new player. I don't think many of the starter boxes do, actually, so it is more likely that a new mini player is coming in with an existing peer group to show them how to play/give hobby tips.

However, it is considerably easier to poach players of other miniature games, as they don't have that learning curve and likely already have many of the tools and skills required. I went to AoS from Warmachine pretty easily, as I only needed the plastic glue due to the change in material of the miniatures (though I did end up getting some Citadel paints - that Retributor gold is amazing). So, it could be said that the WHFB starter set, if it managed to get other mini game players interested, didn't keep their interest.

Long story short (too late), the price is the last thing a new player (or old player) really looks at when deciding to play a new game. I think GW knows this too, which explains their prices for AoS units.

Shrinking year on year volume tells a different story for 40k though. If people aren't playing wfb, there is a reason. Maybe it's the price? The massive buy in to a reasonable level-of-play? That gw pushed the gsme where it's fans didnt want it it go? Price is a big thing for a lot of people, especially if it's in addition to an already expensive game...

GW is expensive. I don't think anybody could argue otherwise. And with the price of petroleum products going up, one day, plastic miniatures may be more expensive than metal ones. WHFB, which is best played with hundreds of models, isn't cost effective for the players... or GW. With the rising cost per figure, it's very likely that the prospect of a game with many hundreds of models as its base line would become too expensive to maintain or sell to players. So, GW would have to reduce the number of figures needed for the game in order to reduce the price... which they did with Age of Sigmar.

You are someone who never grew up with wfb. You've not lost what theyve lost. It's easy for you to so casually dismiss people's genuine issues, and you are quite wrong for doing it. As for baggage - Mate, they chucked the baby out with the bath water in favour of a thing that, while I can see value in, is something so many fsns just see as an insult. Keeping the fans on board is a clever move. It generates a thing called 'goodwill'. In a 'word of mouth' based hobby, this is key to future success. You know - responding to people's concerns and issues, Rather than nuke and reset from zero.

I didn't grow up with WHFB, but I did grow up with other things that have gone through similar things. For instance, I was a launch day fan of Star Wars Galaxies and watched as it went through a combat upgrade and then the dreaded "New Game Experience", before ultimately getting gak canned in favor of the disaster that was Old Republic. I also played Dust Tactics before it was sold to Battlefront who has mismanaged it from here to eternity. I watched BattleLore die a slow, meandering death over years due to no support, only to be reborn in a second edition that took away a lot of what I liked about the first edition. And don't even get me started on video games... I was a Shenmue fan...

So, I've been there and gone through it... but I've also come out the other side and I've realized that change is inevitable. Nothing lasts forever. So it is better to appreciate what you have than spend you life in bitter resentment over something you never had any control of in the first place.

Two new factions, to be fair. After hoe long? Almost a year, right? And limited fluff. WMH came out with four factions from day1, and this was on top of solid fluff and an already impressive rpg roster. Basic fluff for two factions with an undeveloped IP does not compare. Especially for a company on the scale of gw, and especially on A company of the scale of gw with a focus on 'the narrative'.

I was there with Warmachine on day 1 and yes, there were four factions. With about 4 models each. It took them a while to get up to speed, and early on, there was a lack of releases. Eventually, they managed to fill out the first book with about a dozen models for each faction - of which, all the light and heavy warjacks were variations on the same body with different arms. It had solid fluff because the Warmachine setting was worked on as a D&D 3.5 module for a DECADE before they started the miniature game. Right now, Warmachine is trying to figure out the whole plastic model thing (and not doing so great at it, so their quality has taken a huge hit).

So, I don't think you can really compare the two. AoS had two factions with dozens of models, two campaign guides, three battletomes, six terrain elements, and five or six novels within the first two or three months of release. Granted, GW isn't a fledgling company like PP was at the time, but they have delivered plenty. You may not like what they've delivered, but the one thing you can't say is that Age of Sigmar is lacking in releases. Hell, I'm still catching up on the first stuff. Age of Sigmar came out in July and six months later, we're getting another major release window.

But yes, yes they have. And for a lot of people, this coupled with overpriced rules books and source books is frankly, more than thry can bear. Put yourself in their shoes. You didn't have to lose the old world. Imagine if you did. I'm personally ok with more limited fluff for s starting game, it Jesus Christ, if you are talking about four factions of numerous races that have survived Armageddon from the old world, I want to read about the four factions and numerous, not just sigmarines and khorne bloody berserkers. I don't want to have to wait years for the faction I peotentially spent years collecting to make a bloody cameo.

I'd like GW to have staggered releases from multiple factions as well rather than just pushing out entire, finished factions in the span of a month. But I think that with the new aesthetic, GW doesn't have finalized designs for the new races and thus can't show them yet. But that's just conjecture on my part. I don't really have any control over what GW does or how they do it.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
$100 in paints and tools? What are you smoking? Yeah, maybe if you buy from GW you'll end up spending that. I've made a run down of the minimum you need to buy and paint a Warmachine starter kit. This is from the Warstore, mind you.

Starter Set: $80
Army painter Brush starter set: $11.49
Army painter super glue: $4
Army Painter clippers: $6.00
X-acto Knife: $3
Vallejo paints: (Red, Black, Gun Metal, Grey, Brown Wash, Brown, Flesh color, Burgundy, White and Gold)
Krylon Primer: $7

Spring for Agrax Earthshade and get a cream color if you want a better/easier result.

I was assuming that a new miniatures player would stick to whatever ecosystem of tools were available for their chosen game. So if they decided to start playing 40k or AoS, all the painting guides and tool recommendations would be GW, while a WMH player would stick with the P3 paint line. I would assume that they would not be familiar with the tools and thus would buy the ones recommended to them - so yeah, we're talking $20 cans of primer from your local Games Workshop. With more experience, they'll realize that the $7 can of Krylon primer is better, but the GW stuff will be their baseline for the first year or so. Again, this is assuming a first time miniature player without a social group to ease them in.

I won't get into the WM vs AoS argument, but I do find your estimate to be fairly optimistic - based on years of experience and price shopping that a virgin player won't have. I'll admit that I stuck with the GW stuff initially (for WM, but this was way before the P3 line started) just because it was easily available and required little research. When I needed a file for some metal models, I just got the GW one because I didn't have to research files and learn which grains and shapes were best for metal and resin models. For a new Warmachine player, my guess is that they'll grab a starter set, the three paint sets (kingdom colors, khador, and menoth), P3 primer, and whatever P3 tools there are. It will be considerably cheaper, but not as easily accessible. I can't get P3 stuff in my city and have to mail order it, but there's multiple places I can get citadel stuff.

Yeah, the AoS starter set may give you more models in the box and that may justify the extra cost to you but consider that the Warmachine starter puts you on a much better footing to a complete army than the AoS set.

I'm not even sure what constitutes a "complete army" for AoS...

 mugginns wrote:

Our shop has about five different minis games people can play. The newbs usually look around at all of them. If you think price is truly the last thing (and not even the second most important) then uh, you definitely are a GW customer.

I'm not a GW customer, strictly speaking. I buy way more Warmachine models. I just remember when I first started with miniatures many, many moons ago. I got a demo of Warmachine at a con, like a week or two before it was released. I'd always been enamored by miniature games (I used to buy White Dwarfs and just stare at the pictures), but I tried out WM and enjoyed it and decided to jump in - only to find out how expensive it was well after I was already mentally committed. By then, I was in.

I do think price is important, and one of the first things I had to wrestle with on AoS was the price of boxes (and especially the $30 single figures). So I wouldn't discount the price of things. I just don't think that the GW extra cost is enough to make a new player balk as opposed to the regular cost of other lines. On my WMH wishlist, I have a figure for $32 and a character jack for $42. One day, I'd like to get a colossal, but those are $100+ usually. So I think the cost of continued investment in a miniatures game is already high, and I just don't think GW's premium cost is so much higher that it would be a dealbreaker by itself.

In short, miniature games are expensive. GW games are more expensive, but for that to matter, you must have already accepted the initial expense associated with becoming a mini wargamer.

GW did reduce the number of models in boxes, that's for sure. Instead of 10 guys for 50 bucks you now get five blood guys for 50 bucks. You don't need 100 of them now until your buddies want to play more. As always, they'll emphasize collections in their writing. Collections aren't one box of blood guys.

The Stormcast Eternals are elite units and priced accordingly. I believe you get 20 Bloodreavers for $60 and 16 Dryads for $40. In general, I don't think GW charges by the model, but instead by the unit. It's roughly $50-$60 for a basic unit, regardless of the number of models, and $70-$80 for one of the big colossal type units.

Re: buying only citadel kit tools, someone who drops 150 bucks on blood guys and Sigmarines would almost never buy 30 dollar clippers and 30 dollar primer and 15 dollar glue, just doesn't happen. Dudes are trying to skimp on everything to even afford starting the game.

They will if that's the only option immediately available to them, and Warhammer stores make damn sure it is.

Herzlos wrote:
They don't even stock a full range of their own in-house stuff (Black Library is only the newest, there's tonnes of online-only minis).

I never understood why they don't also have the FFG and console stuff. Would it have killed them to stock the Space Marine console games, or have voucher cards for Total War or the shovelware releases?

My guess is that their distribution network is vertically integrated. They can get any Games Workshop good easily, but they don't have distribution partners that could get them video games or whatever. They COULD, but it might not be worth the hassle for only one or two additional products - though FFG does make enough Warhammer stuff that you'd think they could deal with them directly.

The distinction between low and high fantasy is not who a story focuses on but on the abundance of fantasy tropes in the story's universe.

When you've got dragon riding wizards shooting lightning bolts at orcs, it's high fantasy. If you ride a tornado into a magical land and go on adventures with a lion, tin man, and scarecrow, that's high fantasy. Low fantasy is stuff like the Elves and the Shoemaker, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or Preacher - stuff that largely takes place in the real world with fantastic elements.

There's probably a middle spot between low and high where things like Conan, Berserk, and Game of Thrones fit - things which are high fantasy, but still take place in a largely realistic world and the fantastical elements are not commonplace to the world's inhabitants. Conan is technically part of the Cthulhu mythos, so I guess it also qualifies as horror/scifi.

Collateral Jim wrote:

The distinction between low, and high fantasy I feel is better explained not by abundance but by accessibility. A low fantasy world can contain dragons, it can contain wizards, it can contain orcs and lightning magic. It may even have a climatic combination of all three. If you see something like this on a weekly basis however, when these different tropes and themes become commonplace, that is where we transition from low to high fantasy. Another example would be to look at the Hobbit, with only a handful of elves and dwarves and a single wizard who doesn't use much magic as low fantasy, contrasting with Lord of the Rings with elven armies, a legion of robed wizard-like figures riding dragon-like creatures and more wizards than you can shake a staff at.

The Hobbit has elves, dwarves, magic, dragons, ogres, giant subterranean cities built inside a mountain, and a ring that turns people invisible created by basically an evil god king to rule the world. The Hobbit is high fantasy. In fact, one could argue that because The Hobbit set up most of the fantasy tropes we now consider commonplace, it is THE high fantasy. And the movie trilogy is WTF Fantasy.

Your latter examples (not touching Beserk as unfamiliar with that one), I would call Conan and GoT certainly low fantasy but moving toward high fantasy as the world grows smaller the more it's explored. Specifically on your comment on Conan being part of the Lovecraftian mythos, I don't believe that is the case. Robert E. Howard and Howard Phillips Lovecraft were good friends in life, and often wrote back and forth to each other and put little easter eggs or nods to one another in their works. They were not the same world or story, simply two friends giving subtle nods that we've had decades to catalogue.

The Cthulhu Mythos didn't begin as an organized effort to create a multi-author canon. Even Lovecraft's work doesn't have continuity between stories or use its own mythology consistently. A large part of the organized mythos came from - I want to say Clark Ashton Smith or August Derleth. Anyway, Robert E. Howard definitely wrote some works that were distinctly mythos, like Worms of the Earth, but many of the Conan stories do have references and generally follow the whole cosmic horror angle - though Conan is less horrific and more the sheer power fantasy of uncivilized barbarism (he can beat the gak out of eldritch gods because he only wears a loin cloth and knows not the deceit and corruption of civilized man).

 Collateral Jim wrote:
Worms of the Earth is not a Conan story, I would be wary linking a tale of Bran and his much more historical setting that includes direct Lovecraft mythos to Conan and his fantasy world which do not. I am surprised that you didn't choose the original draft of Pheonix for your arguing point, as before release it had much of Lovecrafts mythos by name.

Honestly, I haven't read Robert E Howard in years, and when I did, I read through basically all his stuff in quick succession, so a lot of it is jumbled in my head. There was one where Conan visits a dead city with an eldritch horror stalking around, and I think the elephant guy in the tower was a god from beyond the stars. Honestly, Worms of the Earth was the only story I remembered the name of

It's been a while. I really should go back and reread all that stuff.

 jonolikespie wrote:
This is not Warhammer 9th edition, we know that, but this is very much a replacement for WHFB and so people simply will compare them and aren't wrong for doing so.

But it doesn't accomplish anything because AoS is not WHFB, wasn't intended to be WHFB, and will never be WHFB. It's like resenting an orange because it isn't an apple... for, like, ever. You may not like oranges, but the anger is completely misplaced and useless. It's like WHFB fans entered the 5 stages of grief and got stuck on anger. Time to move to bargaining, guys.

Deadawake1347 wrote:

To go off of your analogy, it's more like someone selling you apples for thirty years. Then one day the shop owner removes all the apples from the store, burns down the orchid, and tells you that you need to start liking oranges. Because that's what they will be selling from now on.

And that happens in the real world. Things change. My favorite restaurant in the world closed one day without notice. We just show up for lunch and it no longer existed. It was eventually replaced by a Wing Zone, for crying out loud (which didn't last long, and it is now a cell phone store). The closest franchise is over two hours away. So yeah. gak happens. The problem with capitalism is that being a fan of something isn't enough to save it. Ask Firefly fans.

It might be a little silly to resent the oranges, but you can certainly point out that you don't want the oranges, you want the apples back.

Is that likely to happen? Do you think Games Workshop is going to go, "Whoops. Our bad. Here's WHFB back."? Because I don't think they'll do that. If AoS fails, you still won't get WHFB back. It's dead. It's shuffled off this mortal coil. It's playing for the choir invisible. It's not sleeping man. It's dead.

And it doesn't feel that silly to resent the person trying to shove those oranges down your throat when you try to convince the shop owner to sell those apples again.
Or most confusingly of all, perhaps both apples and oranges could be sold together?

Because capitalism doesn't work that way. If there's some reason why apples can no longer be sold, then apples will no longer be sold. Period. We do not know the sales data or creative decisions that were involved in killing WHFB, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't just "Let's piss off our fans by killing this wildly successful and profitable game".

Now, before you say I hate the game, I actually don't. I think it has flaws, I think it needs an unfortunate amount of house ruling which makes it hard for gaming outside of close knit groups, etc.
But I do enjoy it for what it is, a good game for beginners or times when you want to play around a bit more. There are times when a really tight rule set is a wonderful thing, but there are times when a looser rule set allows you to have a little more fun.
I've introduced a few people to AoS who will likely never get into Warmachine, Hordes, Infinity, X-wing, or even 40K, but will sit down with me to play a quick game with basic rules and a small amount of figures.

I've had similar success. My wife won't touch Warmachine with a ten foot pole, but she enjoyed AoS. And my kids (aged 7 and 10) can play AoS - not well, but they can understand the rules - while I'm not sure I could explain Warmachine's cover/concealment/camouflage to them without their deciding they'd rather watch cartoons. That's not to say that AoS is for non-gamers - the hobby aspect is as complicated as anything else, and between players who know what they are doing, it is a very different experience - but the 4 pages of rules was a brilliant idea and really does have a chance of gaining an audience where WHFB couldn't.

The one place where AoS fails is that the WHFB fans (or GW haters who wanted another excuse to complain) won't forgive it. And that's not AoS's fault. In this forum, every aspect of AoS has been criticized to high heaven, and as it is defended or insulted, eventually people move on. But the one element that remains six months later is that it replaced WHFB. Every other argument has been exhausted and is now ignored, but that feeling of "betrayal" never goes away. And it should. It's time.

 doktor_g wrote:

Here's what it boils down to IMO The cost of producing the model, packaging and shipping is minute compared to the cost of content generation. It costs sooooooo much more to write good rules, with great illustrations and generate new models, than it does to physically produce them. IMO, despite Jervis Johnson's preamble in the defense of AoS this is a corporate cost cutting tool... Alone. This company cares about 1 thing MAKING MONEY. They've done the math, and weighed the costs. They aren't stupid they just don't give two gaks about what you do with their product after you buy it. They realized they could sell more models, and cut content costs. They did it. It's just shrewd business. However, they will find in my opinion again, that as KoW cuts into their market share, GW will realize that some model lines that have not crossed over to KoW are not selling and must be cut. It is only In this feedback loop, will y'all get your game back.

I'm really sick of this cynical "GW doesn't care about you, only your wallet" argument. GW is a publicly traded company and by law, they are beholden to their shareholders - not their fans. I haven't been a GW fan for very long but I think they do care about their fans - I think it shows in a lot of the decisions they make, like the painting tutorials they put up on Warhammer TV, or their painting line with the myriad of colors broken into base/layer/highlight shades, or the high quality of sculpt and plastic they use in their - let's face it - jaw dropping models. GW wants you to have the premium tabletop experience and every decision I've seen indicates that they are willing to go to great lengths to deliver it, even to the most novice gamer.

However, this doesn't extend to how much it costs to have that experience. GW is expensive - often too expensive - but they have quality products. You have to pay for the experience, but you can tell that a lot of attention went into creating it. GW does make decisions that favor their shareholders, which they have to, but within that constraint, GW still produces the best models on the market (or some of the best models, depending on your aesthetic preferences and/or hatred of GW) and still remains the industry leader in the field.

And as far as giving feedback to their fans. I think they are terrified of their fans, and after months of arguing in favor of AoS to GW haters, I understand that completely. Hell, Warhammer TV asked for tutorial suggestions and even that became a war of who could insult GW the most when they knew someone was listening. Every comment made by a GW employee (or ex-employee) over the past two decades is scrutinized in the most cynical, hateful way as proof positive that GW secretly likes raping people for fun. As a fan, it is frustrating to not have even an inkling of an idea of what's going on in GW HQ, but I get it. They don't hate their fans. They are scared of them. They let their products do the talking for them, which I guess they think is enough. And it almost is.

 jonolikespie wrote:

I'm sorry but perhaps the reason you think GW cares about their fans is exactly because you haven't been a GW fan for long. We all started out loving the company once, just like you. But you know what, there is only so much that we as fans can put up with.

I get that, and I've been in that situation with other companies and other games in the past. I was a Sega fan. Ask me how that went. But when I decided I couldn't take it anymore, I moved my loyalties to another company that was better able to meet my needs as a gamer. The problem is, GW players don't move on. They keep playing, but they hate GW for it. I get that too. But I don't think the solution here is to just hate GW more loudly.

"Gamesday is a place where our fans can participate in their favourite part of the GW hobby, buying things from Games Workshop."
A somewhat infamous quote now, but that is what GW's head of IP told a courtroom while on a stand. How about "We sell toys to kids." Kirby's own words, also not very encouraging. How about the fact that as an Aussie I have to pay the same stupidly higher prices even though the vale of the Aussie dollar shot up a few years back and was almost on par with the US dollar? How about the blatantly anti consumer practices of enforcing embragos so I can't buy from America, pay the shipping myself and get something cheaper? There are plenty of reasons to believe GW don't think highly of their customers.

Some of those things are anti-consumer, and yeah, I think GW makes a lot of infuriating decisions - but I think that GW as a business is different than GW as a game creator, and I think GW as a game creator shows a lot of care and understanding for the players, even if GW as a business seems to undermine it at every turn. Seriously, if GW dropped the prices of everything 20% across the board, I think most complaints about GW would dry up over night. Yeah, the other stuff sucks, but it's the prices are where the root of the hatred really comes from.

Also, some of those things are just the low self esteem of gamers. "We sell toys to kids" Who cares?

As for the claim that GW still produces the best models on the market as some kind of justification for the price... that's highly subjective.

It absolutely is, but just like some people like Age of Sigmar, some people feel that GW's quality is worth the extra cost. I'm not sure I'm one of them. Truth be told, I'm not sure I can afford to maintain an interest in both Warmachine (where I play two armies, Khador and Cryx) and Age of Sigmar (where I play Stormcast), and when it comes down to it, I'm not sure which one I'd pick - and price is a HUGE concern. If AoS were the same price as Warmachine, it would win out easily, I think. I like the game better, the models are higher quality, and there's more variety in the types of experiences I can have with it. But I'm not going to sell a kidney to do so.

I think Infinity's models make GW's look like toys, but I know some people argue that because GW's are multi pose they are better. If you are talking models as a whole though, and not tabletop wargaming models Tamya kits blow GWs away in every category for half the price (a third if you are using Oz prices). I'd argue that these days GW are nothing special in the modeling department, they just have a large catalog.

I disagree. I think GW has some of the best models on the market. Not every model, but the really great models just floor me. I mean, I get the campaign books just to look at giant full page, glossy photos of the models they make. Nagash is jaw dropping. Even something like the Vampire Count Coven Throne with all that swirling stuff and the characters on it - I mean, holy crap. That's a fething model kit.

I also saw the Warhammer TV thing too, and I saw the jokes about 'marketing 101' and 'market research' made in the thread. You know why people make those jokes at GW's expense? Because they are frustrated with GW and want them to change for the better. Seriously, wouldn't you like to know what is coming more than a week in advance? Wouldn't you prefer GW asked you what kinds of things you wanted so they could make those?

ISure, I would love to know in advance. I tend to plan out my budget by the month, and knowing what's coming out helps me do that. But honestly, I don't need to buy them the week they come out. I have some room in my budget now, and I'm buying terrain kits that came out three months ago. And that's fine. As long as there isn't too much in the way of limited edition items that disappear after a month, I'll get them eventually. And having such a short time between having something announced and it coming out is great. It keeps the hype up, and honestly, I'll bet anything that it increases sales as you don't have much of a cooling down period between hearing about something and being able to buy it. So nah, I guess I don't really have a problem with that.

I'd like more long term goals, like what's in the future for AoS six months to a year down the line. But I've been burned by things like that in the past, where plans changed or get delayed, and it feels like I'm being strung along with a promised feature that never appears or doesn't come out to the standard I was expecting. That's half the reason I don't play MMOs anymore. I could see how such long term plans could ultimately bite GW in the ass, and if you were afraid of your fanbase, you'd be afraid to release plans that weren't 100% certain too.

As for listening to me... nah. I play GW's game, they don't make my game. I'm perfectly capable of making games myself (on computers, not necessarily miniatures), and if there's something I'd really like to see done, I'd do it. I play games from other people because I want to see their visions and experience their ideas. If every game were what I wanted, all the games would look the same eventually, and I value new ideas and variety more than conformity. I see gaming as something to explore, not comfort food. I want wild and untamed experiences. To me, a brilliant idea that doesn't quite work is more exciting that an expertly implemented, but ultimately trite one. I like Age of Sigmar so much precisely because it is wild and untamed. It won't be like this in five years, for better or worse, so right now, I'm enjoying the ride.

And I guarantee that GW is listening to fans. As someone who has created things in the past, I promise you that someone is reading every comment, just like I read every review. I cheered every good review and booed every bad one, but I read every single one of them and took the things they said to heart - when I agreed with them. When a bunch of people on a popular forum like this act like petty children, that just reinforces the idea that GW's isolationist policy is correct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:

It's not just "Haterz Hatin" that makes us think GW doesn't care. It's GW's own words and actions that do.
GW comes off even worse when compared to other companies and how they treat their fans. Corvus Belli will send people and prizes if you have a group over 30 people. PP recently asked on their forum (because they're not scared of having one) what people wanted from their magazine. A month before that they asked what people would do to improve the game. Shortly after that a massive errata was published.

And that is a matter of scale. It is easier to talk to your fans when there are fewer out there, or where their opinions are more homogeneous. While it's not the same thing, I used to run a webcomic and its associated community. When there were just a few thousand fans, it was simple enough to listen to every one and talk to them one on one. But by the time I had about 20,000 daily readers, it became impossible to respond to every email or assuage the fears of every complainer. I'd ask my fans a question and I'd get several hundred responses - many of them contradictory, some impossible. So someone was going to be disappointed, and in the cases where I followed my own desires instead of my fans, I ended up disappointing a lot of people, some of which never forgave me for it.

So yeah, I get it. But I also understand that once you reach a certain scale, it requires exponentially more effort. I could've hired more moderators and left the public relations to someone more suited for it - I should've done that, but I didn't, because I was an "artist", not a community manager, and I wanted to pursue what I wanted to pursue and if that was against the wishes of my fans, tough titties. And I paid the price for that on several occasions. But I'd still probably do it the same way if I did it again. After all, I'm still an "artist" and I still think managing a group of unruly, ungrateful nerfherders is a poor use of my time.

GW making high quality models isn't enough to make me think they actually care. Especially not when compared to how they used to act.
And then seeing models like this make me not so sure the best models on the market thing is true.

Spoiler:

I think that model is pretty cool. It's not one of their best, but not one of their worst either. But I could cherry pick Warmachine models too. Denny2 is awful, and Zerkova1 has a horse face. And the resin/plastic models they make are awful. Some models are better than others. But I think when GW makes a great model, it is pretty much unequaled.

Edit: And AOS isn't really a skirmish game. You can use less models, but the game doesn't seem to do that particularly well. Nor massive battles either. It's sweet spot seems to be in the middle, like Warmachine size.

I think AoS is built more around a certain number of warscrolls, rather than the number of models. Each warscroll changes the game ever so slightly, and having too many extra rules bogs it down. But whether those rules apply to one figure or fifty, I don't think matters (other than the slightly longer movement phase). I think AoS could easily be a skirmish game with a few solo models or as a large scale battle and lose nothing.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

But how many more?
Okay, if you don't mind me using a 40k example, if one guy had Sternguard Veterans and the other had Fire Warriors then it would be obvious that the second guy needs more dudes, but without points I wouldn't even be able to guess how many more...

Relax guy. Don't worry about it. Have fun.

You can't make a game absolutely fair, so settle for fair enough. A few extra guys won't be the deciding factor in the game, believe it or not. You can play wildly unbalanced games of AoS and still have fun, so just aim for a number of units where you don't think you are taking advantage of your opponent (and he agrees to it). Whether that is 5 models or 8 models won't make a difference.

(Note: This approach is fine for AoS, but I wouldn't use it for Warmachine. Basically, AoS is about competing goals, not competing players)

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

I can't just "relax" and "have fun" when I'm desperately trying to figure out how much to bloody bring! That's not a fun time, that's an exam question from Hell!

Which is why I'm telling you to relax. It isn't rocket science. Pick some metric - doesn't matter which - to get a rough idea of army capabilities. Wounds works. Heck, number of models works. Number of warscrolls. Whatever. Just something that you can use as a baseline. Once you have that, then you look at the two armies and decide whether one army has a distinct advantage over the other. Not a slight advantage. An obvious, glaringly huge advantage. The kind of advantage that can not be argued.

Then you suggest something that could make it more fair (half the models in this unit, add this warscroll, limit summoning to 10 models, whatever). Then your opponent either agrees and you play, or he'll offer a counter offer. Go back and forth for as long as you think it is worth your time, and if you still can't decide, you pick one option, let your opponent pick another. Either play two games and see who was right or use the Most Important Rule, and just roll to see which option is picked. If it works out, great. If not, you know better for next time (I assume you intend to play more than one game of AoS over your lifetime). And you'll probably enjoy the game, even at a disadvantage, because even the little guys have a chance of hitting the big guys, so there is always a little bit of hope that you can get lucky.

Or, if you are doing set up like in the Four Pages, when your opponent puts down a unit, you try to figure out a comparable opposite to that unit. By taking turns, you can each take the time to build your army in response to what the other player is building. If you don't feel comfortable enough with the units, start with small games, with just a few warscrolls, until you are more familiar with it. I can't speak for all groups, but I think AoS players will be willing to play smaller games because of how the game scales.

I call BS again, curbstomping isn't fun unless you're a WAAC jerk and getting curbstomped isn't fun period.

AoS isn't like Warmachine where the make up of your army is going to be the deciding factor in your victory. It will sway the game one direction or the other, but how you play is going to make a much bigger difference. Most of the really big curbstompy units, like Nagash, you'll see coming a mile away. And a few non-hero models here or there won't be the difference between potential victory and an unstoppable curbstomping.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Ok, but bringing a whole army doesn't help if I want to field something fluffy with a specific theme. So how would plopping your army down and letting your opponent react to it actually work? Am I not putting all the pressure on him to field what he thinks will make a fair game not what he *wants* to play?

If you are playing against someone you haven't agreed upon a baseline limitation with ahead of time, the way you balance armies is by bringing your whole collection and making compromises. Since synergies aren't as overpowering in AoS, I don't think the compromises you have to make will be quite as extreme as you are expecting. You may not be able to whip out Nagash or Celestant Prime without prior agreement, but if you have a similar number of wounds and keywords, you'll probably have a decent battle, give or take. If you want to set up something exceptional, like a really fluffy scenario and army, employ the entire Khorne dreadhold castle, or whip out the game breaking models, then you'd probably want to agree with that ahead of time.

The games you play with strangers are going to be a subset of the variety of possibilities offered by the game as a whole. The more models you have available, and the more willing you are to discuss with your opponent how you want to play, the larger that subset of possibilities gets. If you want only a few specific models and refuse to compromise with your opponent, then the subset of possibilities is going to be very small indeed (possibly an empty set).

 insaniak wrote:
So... if you want to do something 'exceptional' like, say, use the same army as you used in the last game, then you're going to have to renegotiate every single time you play someone new.

Yeah, that sounds like a whole barrel of fun, right there.

If you want to look at it that way, then yes. AoS has no internal balancing, so any balance that you may want from the game will necessarily be an agreement between you and your opponent. That is just what exists in lieu of anything else. But the negotiation doesn't have to be painful or time consuming, and a lot of the scenarios give you a really good starting point for building a game.

I don't think Age of Sigmar is meant to be a super competitive game played exclusively against strangers, especially of the pain in the ass variety. And frankly, if you are unwilling to compromise for the sake of a better game, you are probably the pain in the ass type of player that would be better served with a more structured, cutthroat game.

I don't think it is a fear of losing, although for some players it could be. Instead, I think it is a fear of lacking control. This entire conversation of late has been about "what if the other player doesn't agree", "what if I have to make compromises", or "what if my army has no chance against this other one". People don't want to lose, obviously, but more than anything, they don't want losing to be something they can't control.

Like you could make a perfectly balanced game. Two identical sides, but at the end of round 4, you rolled a die for each surviving unit and decided the game with it. The game is completely fair (even the dice roll) and completely balanced, but I suspect such a game would drive people nuts in exactly the same manner as AoS for exactly the same reasons. In all but the most one sided games, the victory would essentially be more random than not. It's not losing that's a problem, but the lack of "justice". The better player "deserves" to win, and that being out of anybody's control makes the game frustrating and a bit scary.

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with a game like that, but I suspect a lot of people would.