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.
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!
Both Mario Maker and Minecraft are expressly about using your imagination to create new things. That is the point of those games.
You want to compare it properly, compare it to D&D 5e. Homebrew material is very common with D&D, and it works well because the developers actually published a finished, balanced, and good ruleset, not this sack of gak we all call Age of Sigmar.
ASIDE from that, the developers are fething paid to create a whole, complete game. They clearly can't be arsed to do so.
Considering how the 40k team "designs" the game, I am actually amazed their game systems haven't collapsed already. The "Here's this "cool" looking miniature now make rules for it" approach is.... lacking, to say the least.
40k is the most widely played miniatures game in the world, by far, and has been for many, many years. Two strangers can meet up, pull out armies and begin playing immediately. Do you really think that happens just by accident, over all those Codexes and all those units?
* And yes, I realise at least one person is just itching to come back at me and say 'but you can't do that with AoS, eh?' I would argue that if you come down to my place, we could do exactly that, but I don't think AoS was meant to replace 40k in that way at all - I do think it is something different (which is why I like both AoS and 40k, and have no compulsion to pick one over the other!) *
The success of 40k can be derived from far more than its rules system. Sure it's an acceptable system (I won't call it acceptable after 5th when it started going downhill in my opinion) but 40k has a lot more going on for it than AoS.
As for the "pick up" game; - you can do the exact same with WHFB, for instance (I always have my 40k and WHFB army cases in my trunk, just in case ). And we all know WHFB went down the fething toilet.
And I am not saying that AoS is going to substitute 40k, I am just saying that I am amazed that all the gaming systems made with such an inherently flawed design philosophy haven't imploded yet... But then again,.. 40k IS the only system left...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/20 11:47:17
I am just saying that I am amazed that all the gaming systems made with such an inherently flawed design philosophy haven't imploded yet...
Do you think it possible that the reason this has not happened yet is because your assumption is, umm, wrong?
As I said before I think 40k has a lot more going for it than just the rules system, and that is no doubt what helps keeping it afloat.
But I think a lot of your excuses/dismissals in your pretty little cardboard defense of AoS are wrong so... let's keep it at that, heh? I'm wrong because you say I'm wrong.
Bottle wrote: I'm a little lost. What is the inherent design flaw of 40k and why is it the only one left?
Emphasis on this little bit of the Citadel Design Seminar::
"We start when a new model is presented to Design Team, and we’re told to come up with some rules and background for it”. This sounds exaggerated, like someone from the miniatures side of the building produces a KV128 Stormsurge (built and painted to ‘Eavy Metal standard) and says “We made this, make rules and background so we can sell it!” – but this is literally the example we were given! I know!"
Emphasis on this little bit of the Citadel Design Seminar::
"We start when a new model is presented to Design Team, and we’re told to come up with some rules and background for it”. This sounds exaggerated, like someone from the miniatures side of the building produces a KV128 Stormsurge (built and painted to ‘Eavy Metal standard) and says “We made this, make rules and background so we can sell it!” – but this is literally the example we were given! I know!"
Fethin' top notch rule design process, ain't it?
I genuinely don't see this as a bad thing, in fact I would have thought it obvious.
GW are quite open about being a miniatures company. Therefore the miniatures need are the driving force behind things. For any company concerned with the 'feel' of it's miniatures, then aesthetics would logically have to come first - afaik, Jon Blanche is still the guy charged with this overall?
For example, in certain circumstances that works seamlessly. Take the new Firewarriors. Makes complete sense to have a slight evolution, so the kit has bigger armour and new guns to allow a dual build for a new type of unit.
GW have a dual kit that (at least in theory) is going to shift twice as many units relative to logistics. The fluff is an easy sell there, because it makes sense.
In the 40K universe, development and advancement - even within the Imperium - is kinda accepted. Orks build Gorkanauts, you can see that happening. Tau develop new tech - that's pretty much what they're known for, Tyranids evolve, as more Tomb Worlds are awakened new Necron units come online, etc. etc.
So that model works.
Now go back to WFB. It's a historic setting. Tech doesn't advance on any real kind of scale. There's nothing left to 'discover'. Stuff is pretty much as-is. There was no advancement in the timeline because the stage was so small.
Look at the last Dark Elf release. Add in Swordsmen to the traditional combo of Spears and Crossbows. Erm, okay, funny they've never really been mentioned before but it kinda makes sense... oh, and enormous sea beastie that's always been there. And warlocks on horses. And...
End Times.
Cue complaints from the fluff crowd. That Design-led process 'breaks'.
I'd actually suggest AoS was intentionally designed to gain maximum benefit from this approach. The world is essentially a blank canvas. We've got a few key players already, but the 8 realms have been crushed into submission for thousands of years, and we as the 'viewers' are following Sigmar as he rediscovers the place. With no army book cycle to worry about, the narrative elements are easy. Studio comes up with new Duardin wartrain? Cool, bring it in, we can have it as part of the Battle for the Hearthstone campaign we've got planned. Seraphon get a beast-master style pack of dog-sized Raptors to protect units? Nice. There's no continuity to break because the whole setting for AoS is one of discovery and advancement.
I have no idea how long GW have been using this miniatures-led process - I know it wasn't the case yeeeaarrrs ago. But if the quality of the miniature output for the last 5 or so years - across both 40K and WFB/AoS - is the result, then I'm all for it.
No doubt the miniatures have become better looking (and more expensive, and the price per model has doubled, and... I rant ) but if the price for that is AoS-like shoddy "rules", I am definitely not buying it, but that is personal opinion.
What good are awesome-looking miniatures if I don't want to play the game they are specifically made for?
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?
I didn't say AoS doesn't have rules. I said they were shoddy - it's a whole different thing.
Also I can do what I am doing at the moment - not buy the AoS content. But, last I checked, there was nothing barring me from expressing my opinion while talking to RoperPG about the current citadel design process... or is there?
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.
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?
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).
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).
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.
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.
So what if I tested the game with a confirmation bias? What does that mean? I came to 40k with the exact same fear, and yet here I am, 11 years later, with a healthy Dark Angels army and eagerly awaiting the day FW releases DA Contemptors, the Lion, Corswain, etc.... It is exactly because I ended up liking the 40k that I even bothered to try AoS to begin with.
Also this thread is made to clear misconceptions from a certain point of view - the OP is actually saying "this is what you expect, but really, it's like this because I see it like this." Which is all fine and dandy, until they clash with other people's opinions, who believe the misconceptions aren't misconceptions at all...
A good game needs no defense for it defends itself.
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?"
Sorry, but that is a horrible comparison to begin with and tbh MWHistorian is quite tame compared to some rabid/offensive defenders of AoS that label anyone that doesn't like AoS or raises criticism against the game as tools or morons. 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.
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.
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 would like to think there would be none whatsoever. Do note I am not trying to excuse the people who dislike AoS or the to label AoS supporters as villains. Far from it, as we are responsible for every single action we take (unless completely fething wasted). I really want to point at the true source of this endless war that will clearly go into the M41.
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.
I will keep saying it as I play other games, mind you, for many, many reasons.
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.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/10/21 15:17:06
RoperPG wrote: I have actually looked through the Infinity forums and others, and what is different here is that as far as I can find, the people in those forums who express negative opinions still play the game.
That's the difference and frankly I can't understand why anyone would want to do what is regularly occurring here.
It's like going out of your way to go into an Apple Store to shout about how Apple is overpriced and rubbish and not as good as Samsung.
Just...why?
There is plenty of discussion on balancing (as an example), but it's for the most part by people who want to play. That's fine. Christ, Warseer is basically the home of the bitter gamers, but at least they still play the stuff they are whining abou-BOO! BOO AGE OF SIGMAR. BOO!
And yet when people that dislike AoS come to debate a thread specifically made to convince AoS dislikers that they are wrong... this is what they get?
Sqorgar wrote: 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?
Holy gak. That's... just wow.
That's really all I have to say. And considering just that, this little interchange is over.
Mymearan wrote: "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? "
Would like to know this as well. The "I have a right to complain, be an adult" response doesn't explain why you would complain using the exact same arguments, month after month, about a game you hate. We know you can, because moderation allows it here. But WHY? It benefits literally no one, least of all yourself. I have been on forums where most of my posts where complaints and angry arguments. All it did was make me angrier. In the end I stopped visiting those forums because I realized I was doing myself a disservice.
Lithlandis admitted that he is "angry and lashing out". Is that the basis of good discussion? I think most people would say no, there's no point and you need to move on.
And constantly insulting and degrading those who don't share your opinion is?
Spot on Mymearan. Spot on.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/21 18:25:38
Mymearan wrote: "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? "
Would like to know this as well. The "I have a right to complain, be an adult" response doesn't explain why you would complain using the exact same arguments, month after month, about a game you hate. We know you can, because moderation allows it here. But WHY? It benefits literally no one, least of all yourself. I have been on forums where most of my posts where complaints and angry arguments. All it did was make me angrier. In the end I stopped visiting those forums because I realized I was doing myself a disservice.
Lithlandis admitted that he is "angry and lashing out". Is that the basis of good discussion? I think most people would say no, there's no point and you need to move on.
And constantly insulting and degrading those who don't share your opinion is?
Spot on Mymearan. Spot on.
Of course not, where did I say that? And why are you avoiding my question? You only commented on the very last sentence in my post.
The funny thing is that, if you read all the posts made by me about AoS, in the couple of threads since I am here (not for months and months, like someone else says) you'll see I will consistently point out what I find to be flaws in the game, pretty much like many others that share the same opinion as I do. There is rarely any anger from us, even though there should be. The anger is not directed at the players who like AoS - as I mentioned previously, I am willing to believe to believe that tw years ago I wouldn't have been insulted... but hey maybe I'm being overly optimistic. It's directed at this sorry little excuse of a game that rose "like a phoenix" (pfft) after breaking a playerbase apart.
We have calmly, collectedly pointed flaws or weaknesses in:
- rules;
- fluff;
- overall aesthetics.
We have also pointed out flaws in the basis for the game's marketing strategies, and the very reason why it came to be. Heck, we have even - many times over - pointed out and suggested what could've been done right regarding AoS, what would have made the game the breath of fresh air that would not have split a player base in half.
I am here to talk and discuss wargames (as you might notice I don't post in the AoS forums alone).
What I am NOT here to do is to call people who don't share my opinion tools, trolls, spammers, or pretty much flying rodent gak insane. Get my drift?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/21 18:42:04
Deadnight wrote: The cost of raw materials (in this case - plastic) is negligible for Gw. Gw prices aren't high because crude is going up, gw prices are high because they are gouging their customers and trying to recoup Their moulds and pay for the bloody retail chain. And give kirby a golden parachute.. Why else can companies like the Perries or any of the makers of historicals make mass battle games on a model scale that dwarves gw, but can still retail their stuff for a lot less.
It never ceases to amaze me how people keep on refusing to see this.
Why else can companies like the Perries or any of the makers of historicals make mass battle games on a model scale that dwarves gw, but can still retail their stuff for a lot less.
Well the Perry's are also not beholden to stockholders and have a much lower operating cost overall since they don't have retail store chains to pay for and all of the other expenses GW has such as payroll for employees.
Both of those things also play a significant role in the end price of product, and the Perry twins have little to none of those to deal with.
The worst thing that can happen to a company is when it goes public.
Funnily enough ending the retail chain altogether and working together with FLGS's all around is an action that has appeared multiples times as a possible solution to the crazy price hikes, but it would involve GW being far more open to FLGS than it actually is (or wishes to be). And it does seem quite feasible.
Legitimate question here but can the game really work if I wanted to say build a fluffy list using say, the shadow warriors, as a theme? If I decide I want the Shadow King, 30 shadow warriors and 10 Ellyrian reavers converted to look like mounted shadow warriors and that is what I brought to a FLGS for a game, would that even work?
Well, let's have a look. Let us suppose you went down to the FLGS with that force and met me.
After saying that is an awesome idea for a force (because it is!), my first thought would be to suggest we play The Trap Battleplan, with you as the ambusher, as it fits right in with how your force is supposed to operate. I have brought my Bloodbound, so the Khorne guys have obviously blundered into your territory with delusions of murdering everyone, and they have run into you. An entire town of Aelfs depends on you stopping them!
Doing this very roughly, you have a little under 60 Wounds in your force, I know from experience that your Reavers will be a royal pain, and the The Trap scenario gives you some ungody advantages at the start. So, the Bloodbound should take a few more models than usual and, on paper, should look like they have the advantage.
The only real tactical concerns I would have would be a) missile fire is going to be nasty in turns one and two, and b) your Reavers will be hard to catch.
So, I would plonk down two units of 20 Bloodreavers (meatshields), backed up by a Bloodsecreator and probably a Bloodstoker, just in case they have a chance to be effective (!). A unit of Skullcrushers goes down next (six of them) to both give archers something difficult to destroy plus they bring a little mobility to the Bloodbound. Blood Warriors next, two units of 10 - or maybe one unit of them, and one of Skullreapers, depending on what I had brought with me.
Add a Mighty Lord of Khorne (maybe on a Juggernaut, maybe not, again, depending on what models had been brought - the latter is slightly harder but is likely to be in a position to get targeted, so will probably be the lesser option!), and reserve the right to use the Legions of Chaos rule (bring in a unit or three of daemons mid-game - maybe), and I think we would be all set.
I believe anyone familiar with AoS would think that is a good set up for a game - it will be absolutely vicious, you will have the feeling of a small, elite force battling against incredible odds, but it will be a fair game,
In reality, all that would have taken a couple of minutes on the day.
So, when are we playing?
That sounds pretty great, and like a very fun scenario to play. But that seems like something you could never expect a couple of inexperienced players to come up with together. I'm also curious where the Trap battleplan comes from, it isn't part of the freely available rules I am aware of.
You need to pay for that little scenario, dude, or have someone who has already purchased the book fill you in on the scenario.
Did you forget this is GW we're talking about? tsk tsk
You can see that in the example I gave - we could have just set up a bunch of models up on opposite sides of the table, had a fight, and gone home. You seem like a gent, so we would have had a good time.
However, instead we played a game with a decent narrative (plucky elite defenders protecting their village against a superior force), with a scenario that fitted your force perfectly, and we would have had a great time.
That is what AoS encourages and delivers.
Put another way, this is why everyone who seems to be an AoS fanboy is telling you to give it a try - it really can be that good
Just to throw this in - nothing of what you're saying couldn't already be done with WHFB. Yet this is heralded like the Second Coming...
Just to throw this in - nothing of what you're saying couldn't already be done with WHFB.
You are absolutely right - but, as I said in the OP, most people did not play that way. They stuck strictly to points-based games.
The difference is in what each game encourages players to do. You can do anything you want with any game, but they tend to have 'defaults' that lead you down a certain path and the majority of players will go down that path. That is what AoS has removed/changed from WHFB.
Please note, I am not saying it is better. I still play 8e. I have just found AoS naturally leads us down areas that, in several years of 8e, we did not touch.
And that is all I am saying
I will agree that AoS encourages exactly the opposite that 8ed (and previouseditions) did.
And do remember that people stuck to pts-based games because they desired to play it pts-based - they could just as well ignore pts and army restrictions.
However, GW finally decided this was not how they wanted their customer base to use their glorious miniatures, so they turned the tables around and shafted a good % of their customer base.
But I digress.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/26 12:01:04
auticus wrote: 8th edition for me like its predecessors was largely pitched battle tournament standard 24/7. It got really really really old.
That may be one reason why I like AoS better, besides the fact I don't have to memorize another thick rulebook and FAQ... because AoS encourages a larger variety of scenarios and builds.
Pitched battle 24/7 was indeed yawn-worthy, no doubt there!
With all due respect... the second statement - isn't it a bit contradictory? True that there's no thick rulebook (well... actually there are two at the moment, with a third one incoming) but a larger variety of scenarios and builds to memorize... more to memorize?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/10/26 12:31:21
auticus wrote: 8th edition for me like its predecessors was largely pitched battle tournament standard 24/7. It got really really really old.
That may be one reason why I like AoS better, besides the fact I don't have to memorize another thick rulebook and FAQ... because AoS encourages a larger variety of scenarios and builds.
Pitched battle 24/7 was indeed yawn-worthy, no doubt there!
With all due respect... the second statement - isn't it a bit contradictory? True that there's no thick rulebook (well... actually there are two at the moment, with a third one incoming) but a larger variety of scenarios and builds to memorize... more to memorize?
I find that having to have the book open to the scenario we're on is easy. Having to memorize 120 or so pages of rules, some of which are contradictory, was a chore. Added to the issue is that I had 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th in my brain so was constantly crossing wires!
Multiple scenarios I don't think is that way because when you're playing you're just playing one of those scenarios, and you just have to read a page or two and then keep the book on that page during game as opposed to flipping back and forth in the big rulebook trying to find some obscure rule you know exists that you read the other night but cannot find because its in the corner of page 46 in an area not logical to where it should be
Well then, if you're choosing not to memorize... definitely you won't have to memorize more! More power to you
Bottle wrote: Well, the rules used to stop you from doing it before.
Sure you can break them, but people like to play by the rules (including me).
Have a little faith in your opponent. Would you use the unbound rules to play a discordant mix of models that doesn't match the background? No? Then why presume your opponent will?
Because nothing in the rules is stopping you! That's the thing!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mymearan wrote: It's true that you COULD change rules, make up your own points, play without points etc in any game ever, you don't need AoS for that... except most people never do it. The big difference is that AoS encourages or even demands those things, because there is no official framework to fall back on. So I find myself playing more narrative games, using points sometimes and sometimes not... something I would not do in other games simply because like most people, I go the path of least resistance, which is using the official framework because it's convenient. So the end result is that these things are done in AoS but not nearly as often, if ever, in other games.
As I have stated before - nothing stopped players from playing WHFB/whatever game uses points/a universal balancing measurement exactly like AoS is being played and ignoring points/balancing measures. Nothing. You can toss the rules out and go full on lulz "look at my khornate skink army".
You are only playing AoS like this because GW is telling you to play it like this.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/10/27 09:18:59
Mymearan wrote: It's true that you COULD change rules, make up your own points, play without points etc in any game ever, you don't need AoS for that... except most people never do it. The big difference is that AoS encourages or even demands those things, because there is no official framework to fall back on. So I find myself playing more narrative games, using points sometimes and sometimes not... something I would not do in other games simply because like most people, I go the path of least resistance, which is using the official framework because it's convenient. So the end result is that these things are done in AoS but not nearly as often, if ever, in other games.
As I have stated before - nothing stopped players from playing WHFB/whatever game uses points/a universal balancing measurement exactly like AoS is being played and ignoring points/balancing measures. Nothing. You can toss the rules out and go full on lulz "look at my khornate skink army".
You are only playing AoS like this because GW is telling you to play it like this.
That's exactly my point though... you COULD do the same in WHFB or any game ever... but almost no one did. They use the official framework because it's easier and more convenient. So no matter the reason why, the end result is that people play Age of Sigmar in ways they did not play WHFB. Which I personally enjoy.
*Watches his point flying waaaay up in the air, ungrasped*
Mymearan wrote: Maybe you could explain instead? I don't see what you're saying that's different from whay I'm saying.
Fine.
Answer me this: how many people did you see campaigning in the forums that points/balancing systems are bad before AoS hit? Not campaigning that FB/40/Wmh/Infinity were unbalanced, but outright stating that balancing systems were horrible to begin with and that you should never use balancing tools in tabletop games - you should eyeball it all because it's "so much better that way and so much fluffier too!" (e.g khornate skinks). What happened between then and now?
I really can only remember Jervis in that beautiful article he wrote all those years before this gak fest...
Also... what was the initial reaction to Unbound? Note: not Apocalypse. Unbound. And what is the overall agreement that Unbound is? And what is the prefered way to play 40k matches still worldwide - is it Unbound or that horrible, horrible points system option? What did the 40k playerbase decide was the best playing option when given a choice?
And now... AoS. And all fething hell went loose. The Pied Piper's tune started going wrong...
People are defending AoS's system because it's what GW has implemented. End of. However, when presented with an option between that Free For All gak and an internal, singular balancing system, I bet you they will go for the points system first and then, if they so desire it, throw it out the window. It's just that simple - they are following because they are afraid to step out of Holy GW's plastic crack. If AoS would have had a full points/singular internal balancing system and 4 pages in the back of the rulebook saying "look play this here if going for full lulz level", I would bet you Jervis Johnson and his pals would still be the only ones playing things like that. Hell, I can even bet you that if Mantic did a system exactly like this, many of the AoS defenders would outright mock it to hell. Period.
I will repeat what I said earlier in this thread (and apparently was called a troll for saying it) - this AoS schism and the gakstorm that followed is just a fallout of GW bullying their way of playing on their customer base. "Play it like this - like we tell you to - or gtfo"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Swastakowey wrote: The only reason most of you are playing this is because GW has their logo on it.
Blam! Nailed it! Have an Exalt.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2015/10/27 10:16:09
I really can only remember Jervis in that beautiful article he wrote all those years before this gak fest...
I like that article (don't agree 100%, but still find it an interesting read). It shows why GW went for something like AoS.
They haven't followed through on their end of the bargain though. Jervis talks about how influential they can be on the style of games most often played and yet they focus 0% nowadays on actually how to play the games. It's the biggest mistake GW make in my eyes, and being able to read articles or watch videos about the developers having fun with the AoS ruleset would work wonders. As it is we only have the noble efforts of MongooseMatt.
And, as unfortunately somewhat expected, you're completely ignoring how he pretty much paints competitive players as the cancer of wargaming and writes the article in a way that is looks more like an act of division instead of inclusion.
And I have trouble seeing on how they haven't followed on their end of the bargain. How more uncompetitive can you get apart from AoS? They pretty much just said "Here, our company stance is now to do whatever you want. We don't care as long as you purchase our models to play this."
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: Answer me this: how many people did you see campaigning in the forums that points/balancing systems are bad before AoS hit? Not campaigning that FB/40/Wmh/Infinity were unbalanced, but outright stating that balancing systems were horrible to begin with and that you should never use balancing tools in tabletop games - you should eyeball it all because it's "so much better that way and so much fluffier too!" (e.g khornate skinks). What happened between then and now?
They saw an alternative they had never considered before?
Holy gak! Really? I saw that alternative when I was 5 year old playing with army men Guess what? I am not 5 anymore and I like my games to have decent structure. Or else it's not really a game, it's just moving miniatures around while making funny noises - an activity something that GW encourages, apparently.
Sqorgar wrote: I don't think points are really the issue here. I think most people would agree that points are a tool, and not the only tool, and it can be used in good ways and bad ways. Where people disagree on the lack of points is largely the lack of guidance, not balance. If AoS had something that gave that guidance, even if it wasn't points (pre-planned scenarios, some sort of deployment guidelines), people would be less hateful towards it. But lacking that guidance, people are uneasy - most seem to have little practical experience, and their uneasiness seems to give them anxiety that prevents them from seeking it out.
I think that's one of two major points against AoS. The other is that it replaced WHFB on short notice, without a proper mourning period. To people who hate that, AoS will always be GW's Shemp. There's not really much anyone can do about that one.
People are defending AoS's system because it's what GW has implemented.
I assure you, I'm not. I'd never bought a GW product before AoS. But where some people see a lack of guidance, I see a lack of restrictions. It's like open world video games. Some people require linearity to not get lost and feel anxious about what they are supposed to be doing, and some people see a mountain on the horizon and think, "I'm going to jump off that thing".
Comparing open world video games to tabletop = fail. In so many ways it's not even funny. Moving on
Hell, I can even bet you that if Mantic did a system exactly like this, many of the AoS defenders would outright mock it to hell. Period.
Why would this be the case? I've seen nothing to suggest that AoS fans are anti-Mantic, much less because they are AoS fans. Heck, I just ordered Deadzone last night. If they did a system like AoS, I'd find it intriguing as well. The people who would complain would be the people who left GW for Mantic because GW was doing a system like this. That betrayal would be the stuff of legends.
Cute little twist there, but in case you didn't figure it out, the point isn't "GW players hate Mantic". The point is "This game is being treated differently because it was released by GW". You can replace Mantic with any other model company out there that the results would be the same.
I will repeat what I said earlier in this thread (and apparently was called a troll for saying it) - this AoS schism and the gakstorm that followed is just a fallout of GW bullying their way of playing on their customer base. "Play it like this - like we tell you to - or gtfo"
But your complaints are, literally, that GW doesn't tell you how to play...
And, as unfortunately somewhat expected, you're completely ignoring how he pretty much paints competitive players as the cancer of wargaming and writes the article in a way that is looks more like an act of division instead of inclusion.
I thought the dislike of WAAC players was a pretty common sentiment, not just in wargaming but in gaming in general?
Jervis doesn't focus on WAAC players. He adresses "tournament players" as a whole.
Bottle wrote: Oh sure, I don't like the way he presented it. But the essential idea; that campaign and narrative games are great, is something I agree with (well, maybe he didn't say that lol).
By not following through, I meant they no longer show us how to play their games. They have given us a big sandbox (which I love, but others don't) but they no longer publish content on how to play these games (I.e. The old white dwarf content, battle reports and articles etc).
What I miss the most is the variety of painting and modelling articles. That was stock full of good ideas.
Competitive =/= waac. Tournaments are fine. Don't generalise or make Incorrect generalisations here.
The Jervis article was written over 15 years ago, and WAAC was only an acronym only after 2008 or so (near as I can tell). In the editorial, almost all the things he complains about, including "... because all they were interested in was winning games", describes WAAC players, not just any random player who happened to wander into a tournament.
I think it shows a massive disconnect between how the GW studio does things and how the majority of their fanbase do things.
So GW isn't allowed to create anything that doesn't serve the majority of their existing fanbase?
Sure they are, and that's how we got exactly where we are at the moment. A broken, squabbling customer base. Isn't it swell?
Also, his worries extend far beyond WAAC players - you're just choosing not to acknowledge it. And the year of the article is irrelevant as it mirrors exactly how GW is pushing AoS as. Decades, centuries old plays and books are just as incisive and relevant now as they were then, if not more.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/27 14:20:28
jonolikespie wrote: No, GW is stupid for trying to force a style of play on their customers (the people that pay their salaries) that said people don't seem to want.
Btw there is "some" ground to consider that when GW releases something with the thought to appeal to the public at large it is profitable. My example would be 5th edition of 40k - Cavatore stated that his team went around gaming clubs, saw how most people played, what they liked and what they didn't and incorporated it into 5th. It is regarded as the most successful edition since 4th(included). Yes, I know it has been given many times as an example, but it is the only edition AFAIK for which that was publicly stated. Ergo if AoS proves to be profitable there may be some ground to consider that this was what the audience (or atleast part of it) wanted . It may be an "acquired" desire though...
If they think AoS wouldn't crack the Fantasy base right in two they need to show me where they did their...
Well... congratulations. But not everyone has had the same path into wargaming, and it is entirely possible that someone can play minaitures games and never be exposed to anything other than points-based gaming.
Seriously, we can all surely agree that not everyone plays the same way?
Comparing open world video games to tabletop = fail. In so many ways it's not even funny. Moving on
That is a shame, as I think that point has a lot going for it.
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: The point is "This game is being treated differently because it was released by GW".
I think you are right.
I think you could take any version of Warhammer, put it into the hands of another company and it could easily be overlooked.
The rules are not the attraction to GW games. It is the background behind them.
I would be quite happy to say that if the game was instead Age of Gnomes, I might not go anywhere near it. But it is not - it is Warhammer: Age of Sigmar, and it lets me push around my Chaos and Stormcast models round the table with a storyline I am quite enjoying. So, I agree with you but, for me, that is not the point.
If you are imposing limitations on army selection that aren't present in the rules, then you are altering the rules.
You really aren't. If I decide the limit myself to one Wraithknight per 2,000 points, I am not altering the rules, I am just being a reasonable human being. If I decide to make Heavy D-Cannon S10 instead of SD, then I am changing the rules.
What Bottle is doing is just deciding what army to take using whatever principles seem appealing at the time.
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: nothing stopped players from playing WHFB/whatever game uses points/a universal balancing measurement exactly like AoS is being played and ignoring points/balancing measures. Nothing. You can toss the rules out and go full on lulz "look at my khornate skink army".
You are absolutely right. But, as I said in the OP (anyone remember that? ) how a game is presented will shape how most players approach it. You will get some who go beyond this, but it will not be usual.
If you put a points-based system at the heart of a game, that is how most players will be encouraged to play. Again, as I said in the OP, this is a very real thing and, to a designer, it can be a concern.
You are only playing AoS like this because GW is telling you to play it like this.
Encouraging.
Now, here is the thing about points-based vs. freeform.
Neither is better. Both have their place.
That does not mean that everyone will enjoy both (though I would encourage them to try). That does not mean everyone will 'get' both and yes, there are players out there who cannot see the attraction to a points-based system, as strange as that may seem.
I have a thing for AoS at the moment. I still play 8e (go High Elves!). I am glad both exist.
Answer me this: how many people did you see campaigning in the forums that points/balancing systems are bad before AoS hit?
This is not a good argument, as it leads to stagnation - fundamentally no new games, no new experiences on the tabletop. It is a Plus Point that a company (in any field) is willing to innovate (yes, I know...) and try something new. It does not automatically follow that everyone will think that a good thing.
Look, we are running the risk of going round in circles here. It is possible that those playing AoS may never successfully communicate why they are enjoying the game. But, if that is the case, what harm has it done you? Has AoS changed the way you play games at all?
Unfortunately I do believe that we will be running circles, and we never will stop doing so. It's been long enough.
However - and quite honestly - your possibility of a valid comparison between Open world video games and tabletop FFA games like AoS intrigues me. Would you care to elaborate?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RoperPG wrote: With the AoS-ification of the Lizardmen range, I think GW have tipped their hand a little
The background for them has changed, but the models didn't.
This would suggest Orcs, Undead, the remnants of the Skaven and potentially Beastmen will likely get the same treatment - repacks and a Battletome explaining what they've been up to - and this can be achieved quite rapidly.
Chaos is possibly a little more complicated as from the Bloodbound releases I think that Undivided mortals will be the exception, rather than the norm - so we could be looking at power-specific marauder/warrior/chosen level minis, plus Battletome casting them as a separate faction.
The remnants - Elves, Dwarfs and Empire - no idea.
These factions don't exist within AoS, so my guess is a Stormcast-style release window of 8 weeks or so for the 'new' versions, with the 'old' range going direct-only.
I know it's been one of the lesser criticisms, but padding out the universe as rapidly as possible - and having a consistent 'look' to their retail space seems to fit GW's MO.
I honestly don't think anyone would consider any other treatment to the existing factions apart from what they are currently having. Skaven are pretty much already the same but in AoS. And I believe that even the elves, dwarves and humans will be getting this treatment as well. At the most they'll be getting some new "core units", but that's it. Perhaps a shiny monster/character or two. I don't see GW has having enough manpower to pull three full releases like the Stormcast/Khorne so soon. But I may be wrong
On another note, we're already settling into our regularly scheduled armybook/codex release cycle...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/27 17:03:13
). And we all know 
Have an Exalt.
