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.

 455_PWR wrote:


I am sad to see special characters go away. I am assuming this is a thing of the future, as the only army to have named characters still living is chaos (both demons and warriors). I did enjoy special characters...

Don't forget Death! Manfred and Nagash so far...

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
How much time is 'more time' going to be? We're...what, three months in? Four?

Doing things in stages can work sometimes. With a brand new game with ambitions toward giant, expansive background trying to cover a large number of (very expensive!) factions, replacing an older, well-established game with a fairly attached fanbase, dragging things out with 'wait and see' can do far more harm than good. There's too many unanswered questions, and the ones that get answered...tend not to have very popular answers.

- We're four months into a game that GW intends to support for years to come.

Are you sure about that? I mean, up until the last book of End Times, there were no official statements that WHFB was being canned, and even then, it was just a vague, faux-portentous statement in the back (a herald of stylistic choices to come...)

Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the space marine statue has retaken his place outside GW HQ in a couple years.

I have no problem with campaigns. I love campaigns. There needs to be a basic framework, though. You can't just toss people into this deliberately vast new setting with all these factions and expect them to continually shell out lots of money for campaign books that probably don't involve their army of choice over and over again. That is not going to draw more players than WHFB. That is not going to make more money than it did. And it's not going to motivate people to stick with the company.

I mean, it's been a while since I've kept up with it, but Magic: the Gathering switched settings every few releases, and they made damn sure people could learn about the setting if they wanted. They had free articles on their website delving into the world, the major players, the different factions and what they each wanted, even the design choices and major themes of the release block...and I would argue that the background is far, far less important than it is in a miniatures game like GW sells. If they could do it, why not GW? Hell, GW used to do it. Why stop when they're trying to get a new game off the ground? Why shoot themselves in the foot like this?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the sigmarines pretty vague in their fluff too? No one's sure exactly where they come from, blah blah, heroes from beyond, blah blah, save the day?


Assuming the writers aren't talent-less hacks rushing out expensive garbage... I can see how having mysterious things in your lore is great. It captures fans imagination. It creates discussion, theories, arguments. It helps to draw people into your lore, looking for clues, and lapping up the slightest scrap of information.

However, people actually have to give a damn about your universe first. If people don't like your lore, they'll look at your vague handwaving and think you're a talent-less hack rushing out expensive garbage...

Just caught sight of this, and I'm honestly not sure that we can fault the writers on this one. I (and a number of people in this thread, I'd guess - congrats again to Matt!) tried my hand at the freelance author ad GW put out, and the experience was fairly eye-opening with regards to their creative process. They want a very, very specific type of fluff, with a set list of checkboxes that have to be filled, and I can see how complying with their guidelines can lead to the flaws in the 'GW style' pretty easily. I wouldn't think it's impossible to work around, but I'd also think that quite a bit of the frustrating vagueness is dictated from on high.

 jonolikespie wrote:
[]The flip side of that is that a brand new game was released without adequate support (cos what's a game without fluff) and here we are four whole months later without the proper framework in place any game should have at release. Seriously, two pages of fluff about each faction in your core rulebook, minimum, we got a one or two paragraph blurb covering only the new larger alliances. I'm not sure there is even an official answer yet for if my Dark Elves even exist as a separate faction from elves in general, the only response I have gotten from GW representatives is that I can make up a reason for Dark Elves to be there. This is blatantly insufficient support for a new game.

Please remember that GW went out of their way to provide FREE rules for EVERY existing faction in the game at launch. You can play your Dark Elves right now. For free. That seems like "adequate" support to me. You can learn some patience regarding the fluff. The world doesn't revolve around you and the armies you play.

If that is indeed their plan, then it is a flawed one, simple as that. Seriously, think about it, someone who does not play any of the 2 armies (or the two half armies) currently featured in the campaign books has 2 choices, spend a ton of money to keep up with a progressing story that does not cover anything they are actually interested in but they need to read to know anything about the setting, or they can sit here in the dark only knowing what little comes up here on the forums and have no bloody clue what's going on until something is released for their faction (if it ever is). Your entire basis for the point of GW allowing people to catch up is built upon the idea that people want to buy every book for AoS, given the prices of those books I daresay it isn't just giving them time to get the money together but a lot of people who might have been interested are just writing it off as too expensive.

They can play with their hundreds of dollars worth of models without paying a single additional cent. But if they do want to buy every book, as I do, then they need time to do so. GW isn"t going to put out several years worth of releases in one month. It"s selfish to expect that.

GW's secrecy isn't being taken as laziness or complacency, it is being taken as a policy that is bad for the consumer. No one is questioning their production capacity and speed, we just don't like how long it is taking to get how little we have. Ultimately if the customer deems it unacceptable and doesn't buy the product when it is finally released that's GW's problem and one they might need to address.

You mean like, killing a game and replacing it with another game that has broader appeal? You guys don"t seem to care for that either. Rome wasn't"t built in a day. Patience, young grasshopper. A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.

Eventually. Probably. That really doesn't help anyone. This isn't building excitement, it is building frustration. It's funny actually, I think a lot of it could have been avoided if they just took a leaf out of Privateer Press' book and have the ongoing evolving story but make sure every new book release has something for every army in it. How much better would it be if between the two campaign books we have every single race got a little time in the limelight to show what they are doing, how they have changed, and even just prove they still exist?

The first WMH book had 4 factions with about 12 units each, released over the course of a YEAR. Even now, with 12 or so factions, they are not treated equally. Months go by without releases for some factions. PP is releasing a new book, but some factions still haven"t gotten their models from the last one. And it took two years for Convergeance to get their entire lines of models, and they haven"t got an update since. Again, you want everything yesterday and don"t want to wait for it. You are comparing AoS to games that have been out for a decade, but had similarly constrained supply when they just started. GW is still moving at a rate and in a quantity that the other guys can"t touch, but you can"t wait 4 months for even the second release window without bitching.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Please remember that GW went out of their way to provide FREE rules for EVERY existing faction in the game at launch. You can play your Dark Elves right now. For free. That seems like "adequate" support to me. You can learn some patience regarding the fluff. The world doesn't revolve around you and the armies you play.

Seriously, Jon. The world doesn't revolve around you; it revolves around the Stormcast Eternals and Khornate Bloodbound. Haven't the last four months been enough to convince you of that? What can you possibly be thinking?

 Sqorgar wrote:
You mean like, killing a game and replacing it with another game that has broader appeal? You guys don"t seem to care for that either. Rome wasn't"t built in a day. Patience, young grasshopper. A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step.

...does it have broader appeal? I've seen a few people who, like yourself, weren't interested in WHFB, pick up the game...but I've seen far more people quit. That's not broader, that's shifting and narrowing the focus.

 Sqorgar wrote:
They can play with their hundreds of dollars worth of models without paying a single additional cent. But if they do want to buy every book, as I do, then they need time to do so. GW isn"t going to put out several years worth of releases in one month. It"s selfish to expect that.

 Sqorgar wrote:
The first WMH book had 4 factions with about 12 units each, released over the course of a YEAR. Even now, with 12 or so factions, they are not treated equally. Months go by without releases for some factions. PP is releasing a new book, but some factions still haven"t gotten their models from the last one. And it took two years for Convergeance to get their entire lines of models, and they haven"t got an update since. Again, you want everything yesterday and don"t want to wait for it. You are comparing AoS to games that have been out for a decade, but had similarly constrained supply when they just started. GW is still moving at a rate and in a quantity that the other guys can"t touch, but you can"t wait 4 months for even the second release window without bitching.

People aren't asking for full releases for every faction within a few months, although that would have gone a long way toward keeping interest in the game. People are asking for more than a paragraph about their army. People are asking to get better than "OOOOOH where is the Dark Prince?!" when they ask what their faction is doing. People are asking for a story hook to hang their metaphorical hat on - a hat, by the way, that they have invested a great deal of money and time in.

How is that selfish or unreasonable in any way?

 Sqorgar wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
[]The flip side of that is that a brand new game was released without adequate support (cos what's a game without fluff) and here we are four whole months later without the proper framework in place any game should have at release. Seriously, two pages of fluff about each faction in your core rulebook, minimum, we got a one or two paragraph blurb covering only the new larger alliances. I'm not sure there is even an official answer yet for if my Dark Elves even exist as a separate faction from elves in general, the only response I have gotten from GW representatives is that I can make up a reason for Dark Elves to be there. This is blatantly insufficient support for a new game.

Please remember that GW went out of their way to provide FREE rules for EVERY existing faction in the game at launch. You can play your Dark Elves right now. For free. That seems like "adequate" support to me. You can learn some patience regarding the fluff. The world doesn't revolve around you and the armies you play.

We literally do not know if Dark Elves will exist in the setting outside of the cop out answer of 'they can be if you imagine it', how can you possibly call that adequate support unless you of all people are suggesting the fluff is meaningless and it is the rules that are important.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Eventually. Probably. That really doesn't help anyone. This isn't building excitement, it is building frustration. It's funny actually, I think a lot of it could have been avoided if they just took a leaf out of Privateer Press' book and have the ongoing evolving story but make sure every new book release has something for every army in it. How much better would it be if between the two campaign books we have every single race got a little time in the limelight to show what they are doing, how they have changed, and even just prove they still exist?

The first WMH book had 4 factions with about 12 units each, released over the course of a YEAR. Even now, with 12 or so factions, they are not treated equally. Months go by without releases for some factions. PP is releasing a new book, but some factions still haven"t gotten their models from the last one. And it took two years for Convergeance to get their entire lines of models, and they haven"t got an update since. Again, you want everything yesterday and don"t want to wait for it. You are comparing AoS to games that have been out for a decade, but had similarly constrained supply when they just started. GW is still moving at a rate and in a quantity that the other guys can"t touch, but you can"t wait 4 months for even the second release window without bitching.

I meant the fluff. I don't know how it was from Mk1 but I can pick up the current core book and get a good bit of intro fluff for each faction. I can then read the campaign narrative going on which will touch upon all of those factions and more rather than ignoring half of them in favour of the two fighting at the moment. It is the same with all the supplement books, each get their own fluff piece as well as being relevant to the progressing story (with the exception of convergence, because they were always intended to be a small side army that was never intended to be part of the main books).

This is a significantly better system than GW's current one.

Jono, I am amazed you still bother, really.

In the topic:

Taking into consideration that the new big leak is Archaon on a new mount, I am almost completely convinced this Xmas will be completely and utterly about Chaos.

Which fluffwise will mean nothing new as Chaos is, ironically the big immutable shtick in whatever game GW sticks it in.

Chaos never changes.

I guess Archaon coming will mean Chaos start winning and going on the counter offensive. Possibily opening the story for more Order factions to be introduced.

 Bottle wrote:
I guess Archaon coming will mean Chaos start winning and going on the counter offensive. Possibily opening the story for more Order factions to be introduced.

To be honest they should just make this xmas a huge Chaos bundle and get Chaos Daemons, Beastmen and Mortals all done in one huge go. It's not like they can't be used for 40k as well :p

 Bottle wrote:
I guess Archaon coming will mean Chaos start winning and going on the counter offensive. Possibily opening the story for more Order factions to be introduced.

Because they've not been there all along (right?), that there is a massive narrative fail.

Yeah... would a chaos counter offensive not *reduce* the story options for introducing more factions too?

 jonolikespie wrote:

We literally do not know if Dark Elves will exist in the setting outside of the cop out answer of 'they can be if you imagine it', how can you possibly call that adequate support unless you of all people are suggesting the fluff is meaningless and it is the rules that are important.

I'm not a fluff bunny by any stretch of the imagination. But I think options and variety are important, and a game which emphasizes narratives in scenarios in order to provide that variety is a good thing. So sick of playing Steamroller rules in WMH, over and over and over again.

As for the Dark Elves, they have rules and you can play them. The four pages of rules have no fluff whatsoever. They are a ruleset for playing the game. The fluff comes from the campaign books and the unit profiles. The Dark Elves have all the rules necessary to play them along with 30 years of preexisting fluff. If you want to play AoS in the Old World, there is literally nothing stopping you. But the fluff going forward may not support the Dark Elves. Life is change. Go with the flow.

I meant the fluff. I don't know how it was from Mk1 but I can pick up the current core book and get a good bit of intro fluff for each faction. I can then read the campaign narrative going on which will touch upon all of those factions and more rather than ignoring half of them in favour of the two fighting at the moment. It is the same with all the supplement books, each get their own fluff piece as well as being relevant to the progressing story (with the exception of convergence, because they were always intended to be a small side army that was never intended to be part of the main books).

Mk1 begins with a 20 pg story (not a very good one), with 4-5 pg faction intros, and a few paragraphs about each unit. Warmachine was also a spinoff of PP's DnD campaign setting (Monsternomicon, Witchfire Trilogy) so it had extensive background material before WMH was even a twinkle in their eye, so WMH had a distinct fluff advantage over most new settings. Even then, it was still considerably LESS than AoS provides, as AoS provides two 150 pg campaign books, four battletomes, a dozen novellas or so, and so on.

The problem is, AoS has a dozen factions but is choosing to focus on just a few right now - kind of like how it took a few years before Hordes showed up as playable factions, or Retribution (which was part of the Mk2 relaunch). The Sigmar universe is not a fully formed society with countries, pre-existing heroes, borders and landmarks, and so on. It is a universe destroyed, all civilization destroyed and all heroes taken by Sigmar into his rebellion. Right now, there's just not a lot of lore to speak of because this is how the writers chose to write the fluff. And while that may be frustrating to you, personally, it's not a bad direction for a game with long term support.

With the campaign focus, the players get to be part of rebuilding the world after the tides of Chaos have been pushed back. They get to be there when cities are founded and heroes are created. They get to watch as alliances are formed and broken. Every betrayal and conflict, the players get to see happening as it happens. You don't just read about the history of this fictional world, you help create it. And I think that's pretty cool.

For one thing, I have trouble reading history lessons on imaginary worlds. These guys were mad at these guys, then these other guys came and beat everyone up, until centuries later, those first guys decided to work together to fight back using technology given to them by one of the ascended twins, and then there was an angry dragon... That's just backstory. But to play scenarios where the enemies come in and defeat my army? To be there when alliances are formed? To gain new units based on stolen technology, and field ascended beings in my army directly? That's cool. I like that. And maybe not everybody does, and that's okay. The Iron Kingdoms RPG has source books which describe the phases of the moon and each of the seasons, so there's something for everyone in this crazy world.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

We literally do not know if Dark Elves will exist in the setting outside of the cop out answer of 'they can be if you imagine it', how can you possibly call that adequate support unless you of all people are suggesting the fluff is meaningless and it is the rules that are important.

I'm not a fluff bunny by any stretch of the imagination. But I think options and variety are important, and a game which emphasizes narratives in scenarios in order to provide that variety is a good thing. So sick of playing Steamroller rules in WMH, over and over and over again.

As for the Dark Elves, they have rules and you can play them. The four pages of rules have no fluff whatsoever. They are a ruleset for playing the game. The fluff comes from the campaign books and the unit profiles. The Dark Elves have all the rules necessary to play them along with 30 years of preexisting fluff. If you want to play AoS in the Old World, there is literally nothing stopping you. But the fluff going forward may not support the Dark Elves. Life is change. Go with the flow.

See, I just find that to be a really insufficient answer (even if it is better than the one I got from GW themselves). There is literally nothing stopping me playing 8th ed either, or using my dark elf models in KoW. When it comes down to it there is literally nothing stopping me doing a lot of things. You know what else there is literally nothing of? An incentive to play my Dark Elves in AoS.

 jonolikespie wrote:
You know what else there is literally nothing of? An incentive to play my Dark Elves in AoS.

I'm a parent. I have kids who won't get dressed in the morning without the promise of a treat. But I'm assuming you are an adult and don't need other people to encourage you to do the things you want to do. The whole Skinner Box approach to game design is a failed experiment (lucrative though it may have been), and the idea that a game designer must give you a reason for you to play a game in a particular way - that you would BLAME them for lacking it - speaks volumes.

The problem with extrinsic motivation is that ultimately, you end up engaging in behavior for the reward rather than for the behavior. If, at some point, the rewards dry up, then your motivation for doing something ceases to exist. I'm starting to feel like some miniature gamers are horses that have been raised in captivity, knowing how to feed themselves only when the carrot or stick tells them to. Age of Sigmar releases them free into the wild, where nobody beats them but nobody rewards them either, only for them to starve to death within a week. As they lie there, light fading from their eyes, they look back upon the beatings they received with fondness - it was the structure they desired.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
You know what else there is literally nothing of? An incentive to play my Dark Elves in AoS.

I'm a parent. I have kids who won't get dressed in the morning without the promise of a treat. But I'm assuming you are an adult and don't need other people to encourage you to do the things you want to do. The whole Skinner Box approach to game design is a failed experiment (lucrative though it may have been), and the idea that a game designer must give you a reason for you to play a game in a particular way - that you would BLAME them for lacking it - speaks volumes.

The problem with extrinsic motivation is that ultimately, you end up engaging in behavior for the reward rather than for the behavior. If, at some point, the rewards dry up, then your motivation for doing something ceases to exist. I'm starting to feel like some miniature gamers are horses that have been raised in captivity, knowing how to feed themselves only when the carrot or stick tells them to. Age of Sigmar releases them free into the wild, where nobody beats them but nobody rewards them either, only for them to starve to death within a week. As they lie there, light fading from their eyes, they look back upon the beatings they received with fondness - it was the structure they desired.

...

How, uh.

How is putting a modicum of effort into producing a game more than a handful of people want to play a Skinner Box?

 Spinner wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
You know what else there is literally nothing of? An incentive to play my Dark Elves in AoS.

I'm a parent. I have kids who won't get dressed in the morning without the promise of a treat. But I'm assuming you are an adult and don't need other people to encourage you to do the things you want to do. The whole Skinner Box approach to game design is a failed experiment (lucrative though it may have been), and the idea that a game designer must give you a reason for you to play a game in a particular way - that you would BLAME them for lacking it - speaks volumes.

The problem with extrinsic motivation is that ultimately, you end up engaging in behavior for the reward rather than for the behavior. If, at some point, the rewards dry up, then your motivation for doing something ceases to exist. I'm starting to feel like some miniature gamers are horses that have been raised in captivity, knowing how to feed themselves only when the carrot or stick tells them to. Age of Sigmar releases them free into the wild, where nobody beats them but nobody rewards them either, only for them to starve to death within a week. As they lie there, light fading from their eyes, they look back upon the beatings they received with fondness - it was the structure they desired.

...

How, uh.

How is putting a modicum of effort into producing a game more than a handful of people want to play a Skinner Box?

For some people, it is.

Clearly


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I find it interesting that apparently now we are moving to the notion that players who prefer FB over AoS are clearly lacking in motivation and are automatons that need to be commanded by someone.

It's obvious that we can't choose a specific game design over another just because we prefer that one, right? That's obviously why we are all embracing what GW is trying to shove down our throats... we are mindless.

Good'un

 Sqorgar wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
You know what else there is literally nothing of? An incentive to play my Dark Elves in AoS.

I'm a parent. I have kids who won't get dressed in the morning without the promise of a treat. But I'm assuming you are an adult and don't need other people to encourage you to do the things you want to do. The whole Skinner Box approach to game design is a failed experiment (lucrative though it may have been), and the idea that a game designer must give you a reason for you to play a game in a particular way - that you would BLAME them for lacking it - speaks volumes.

The problem with extrinsic motivation is that ultimately, you end up engaging in behavior for the reward rather than for the behavior. If, at some point, the rewards dry up, then your motivation for doing something ceases to exist. I'm starting to feel like some miniature gamers are horses that have been raised in captivity, knowing how to feed themselves only when the carrot or stick tells them to. Age of Sigmar releases them free into the wild, where nobody beats them but nobody rewards them either, only for them to starve to death within a week. As they lie there, light fading from their eyes, they look back upon the beatings they received with fondness - it was the structure they desired.

It is late here so I am not braining at 100% but I can't seem to make sense of this. Your whole argument seems to be based on the underlined part. I know many a people who would disagree with you about my status as an adult, but your entire argument seems to be built on that one little assumption that I want to play AoS. I don't, because I have no incentive to play. Because nothing is motivating me, but I am not starving in the wild, I am quite happy in the next field over playing Warmachine or Infinity.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
You know what else there is literally nothing of? An incentive to play my Dark Elves in AoS.

I'm a parent. I have kids who won't get dressed in the morning without the promise of a treat. But I'm assuming you are an adult and don't need other people to encourage you to do the things you want to do. The whole Skinner Box approach to game design is a failed experiment (lucrative though it may have been), and the idea that a game designer must give you a reason for you to play a game in a particular way - that you would BLAME them for lacking it - speaks volumes.

The problem with extrinsic motivation is that ultimately, you end up engaging in behavior for the reward rather than for the behavior. If, at some point, the rewards dry up, then your motivation for doing something ceases to exist. I'm starting to feel like some miniature gamers are horses that have been raised in captivity, knowing how to feed themselves only when the carrot or stick tells them to. Age of Sigmar releases them free into the wild, where nobody beats them but nobody rewards them either, only for them to starve to death within a week. As they lie there, light fading from their eyes, they look back upon the beatings they received with fondness - it was the structure they desired.

That's an interesting analogy! Thank you for explaining to us why we are so stupid, that we cannot feed ourselves, and miss getting beaten while we die out in a field.

In the entire breadth of my wargaming experience, I have never done anything other than pitched battles at tournaments, and now I know why I'm lost and angry!

Its good to finally know that my issues with AoS have nothing to do with my age and experience, but rather I have the intelligence of your child who will only get dressed with the promise of a treat. I'm glad you took the time out from your day to explain to me why I'm so dumb.

BRB, gonna go eat some crayons before screaming about my missing blanky.

Obviously, I wasn't talking about you.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Obviously, I wasn't talking about you.

Yeah, sure. you come on this board right around the time AoS drops and just act like anyone that doesn't see the brilliance of it is an idiot. You refuse to see any other point of view, and just basically start fights with your pedantic, judgmental attitude.

Hell, I hate AoS but I'm still trying to make it work, I'm not just complaining to complain.

You just type like you're teaching an English 101 class in a community college to a bunch of freshman who don't care. A lot of the people you are talking too have several decades of wargaming experience across many games and game companies, as I'm sure you do too. Stop acting like we are 12.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
You know what else there is literally nothing of? An incentive to play my Dark Elves in AoS.

I'm a parent. I have kids who won't get dressed in the morning without the promise of a treat. But I'm assuming you are an adult and don't need other people to encourage you to do the things you want to do. The whole Skinner Box approach to game design is a failed experiment (lucrative though it may have been), and the idea that a game designer must give you a reason for you to play a game in a particular way - that you would BLAME them for lacking it - speaks volumes.

The problem with extrinsic motivation is that ultimately, you end up engaging in behavior for the reward rather than for the behavior. If, at some point, the rewards dry up, then your motivation for doing something ceases to exist. I'm starting to feel like some miniature gamers are horses that have been raised in captivity, knowing how to feed themselves only when the carrot or stick tells them to. Age of Sigmar releases them free into the wild, where nobody beats them but nobody rewards them either, only for them to starve to death within a week. As they lie there, light fading from their eyes, they look back upon the beatings they received with fondness - it was the structure they desired.

Nope, not patronising at all...



That means to talk down to someone.

 pox wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
Obviously, I wasn't talking about you.

Yeah, sure. you come on this board right around the time AoS drops and just act like anyone that doesn't see the brilliance of it is an idiot. You refuse to see any other point of view, and just basically start fights with your pedantic, judgmental attitude.

Hell, I hate AoS but I'm still trying to make it work, I'm not just complaining to complain.

You just type like you're teaching an English 101 class in a community college to a bunch of freshman who don't care. A lot of the people you are talking too have several decades of wargaming experience across many games and game companies, as I'm sure you do too. Stop acting like we are 12.

First, seeing one's point of view and agreeing with it are two different things.

Second, there are plenty of posts mentioning "if you don't like reading AoS critique, you're acting childish - suck it up, it's a free forum". It goes both ways.
There are a lot of instances where offense is being taken without any need. This is one. There is a report button, there are mods.

Third, I hope no one takes offense at this, but - someone may be acting like he's speaking with 12 years old because he perceives they're acting as such.

Fourth, it's mighty time for me clicking the report button so a mod stops this before it's too late.

It doesn't invalidate Sqorgar's arguments just because he is new to DakkaDakka.

Everyone should stick to the points, not the persons.

In fairness, his latest point appears to be 'you're all abused farm animals', which isn't exactly conducive to polite discussion.

I would have gone for a Harley Quinn/Joker analogy, myself. We knew GW was nuts, and WE were nuts for letting them manipulate us into spending more and more for the same stuff while things just got crazier and crazier, but we went along with it anyway because we were having too much fun. And then one day they just snapped and blew up everything...so we're off hanging out with AMantic Waller and Ivyfinity, and despite the obvious flaws, we're better off for it.

I'm not sure who the people still playing AoS are in this comparison, but I'll let you know when I've figured it out!

 Spinner wrote:
In fairness, his latest point appears to be 'you're all abused farm animals', which isn't exactly conducive to polite discussion.

I would have gone for a Harley Quinn/Joker analogy, myself. We knew GW was nuts, and WE were nuts for letting them manipulate us into spending more and more for the same stuff while things just got crazier and crazier, but we went along with it anyway because we were having too much fun. And then one day they just snapped and blew up everything...so we're off hanging out with AMantic Waller and Ivyfinity, and despite the obvious flaws, we're better off for it.

I'm not sure who the people still playing AoS are in this comparison, but I'll let you know when I've figured it out!

Awwwww! GW, you're my puddin'!

 pox wrote:

Yeah, sure. you come on this board right around the time AoS drops and just act like anyone that doesn't see the brilliance of it is an idiot. You refuse to see any other point of view, and just basically start fights with your pedantic, judgmental attitude.

That's just not true. I'm not pedantic.

Look, I believe that the best way to understand your beliefs is to test them. It's one thing to just buy into a belief, but it is another to pit it against another in debate. Only when a belief has been battered and beaten by the opposition and come out stronger and more assured can you truly say that you believe it with all your heart. The fact is, maybe Age of Sigmar isn't a great game, and maybe the reason I like it simple subjectivity. The only way that I can know whether or not I know that Age of Sigmar is every bit the game I believe it to be is to constantly test that belief. Which I do. Because I do like the game and I do think that the choices it made were brave and interesting. And I'm willing to test that belief on the field of battle.

I've argued things in this forum that I don't personally agree with. And I've argued against things that I absolutely do. Understanding doesn't come from agreement, but disagreement. It is only when you question your assumptions and tip your sacred cows that you see things for what they really are. So when a game comes out that undermines trusted truths, my ears perk up. No points you say? No balancing limitations? Micro rules? Sudden death? I previously had ideas of what wargames were, formed largely from Warmachine, and Age of Sigmar took a dump on all of them. But rather than getting defensive and angry, I saw an opportunity. What does it really mean to play a wargame? Age of Sigmar showed me things that I didn't expect or know I wanted, and it turned out that I like wargames more now than I did. I've taken a significant portion of my budget every month and now apply it to miniature games, where before I did not. As a writer and a game designer, I want to understand why that is better, and to do so, I must challenge myself, and be challenged, to find out.

I do, sometimes, have a little too much fun with my arguments. Sometimes, I see an exposed bit of flesh and I do sometimes take a bit of joy poking at it with a sharpened stick. I shouldn't, I know, but what good is a debate if you can't have fun?

The truth is, I'd get just as much out of arguing against AoS as I would arguing for it, but there's no shortage of opinions against it. I absolutely do see your point of view on Age of Sigmar, but I don't feel like that belief needs to be tested because it is ENTIRELY gut feeling. It's not objective or considered at all. How can someone hate the gameplay of a game they've never played? How can someone be objective about a game that replaced their favorite game that they've invested thousands into? How can someone give something a fair chance when they curse GW's very existence with every breath? They can't. I see your opinion, but I also see your opinion for what it really is. And I can't and don't share it because I can't and don't have the same biases.

There are really compelling arguments against AoS, but thus far, they've been rare in this forum. It has mostly amounted to "it sucks because I don't like it", with "I don't like it" largely being about transgressions that GW committed.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 pox wrote:

Yeah, sure. you come on this board right around the time AoS drops and just act like anyone that doesn't see the brilliance of it is an idiot. You refuse to see any other point of view, and just basically start fights with your pedantic, judgmental attitude.

That's just not true. I'm not pedantic.

Look, I believe that the best way to understand your beliefs is to test them. It's one thing to just buy into a belief, but it is another to pit it against another in debate. Only when a belief has been battered and beaten by the opposition and come out stronger and more assured can you truly say that you believe it with all your heart. The fact is, maybe Age of Sigmar isn't a great game, and maybe the reason I like it simple subjectivity. The only way that I can know whether or not I know that Age of Sigmar is every bit the game I believe it to be is to constantly test that belief. Which I do. Because I do like the game and I do think that the choices it made were brave and interesting. And I'm willing to test that belief on the field of battle.

I've argued things in this forum that I don't personally agree with. And I've argued against things that I absolutely do. Understanding doesn't come from agreement, but disagreement. It is only when you question your assumptions and tip your sacred cows that you see things for what they really are. So when a game comes out that undermines trusted truths, my ears perk up. No points you say? No balancing limitations? Micro rules? Sudden death? I previously had ideas of what wargames were, formed largely from Warmachine, and Age of Sigmar took a dump on all of them. But rather than getting defensive and angry, I saw an opportunity. What does it really mean to play a wargame? Age of Sigmar showed me things that I didn't expect or know I wanted, and it turned out that I like wargames more now than I did. I've taken a significant portion of my budget every month and now apply it to miniature games, where before I did not. As a writer and a game designer, I want to understand why that is better, and to do so, I must challenge myself, and be challenged, to find out.

I do, sometimes, have a little too much fun with my arguments. Sometimes, I see an exposed bit of flesh and I do sometimes take a bit of joy poking at it with a sharpened stick. I shouldn't, I know, but what good is a debate if you can't have fun?

The truth is, I'd get just as much out of arguing against AoS as I would arguing for it, but there's no shortage of opinions against it. I absolutely do see your point of view on Age of Sigmar, but I don't feel like that belief needs to be tested because it is ENTIRELY gut feeling. It's not objective or considered at all. How can someone hate the gameplay of a game they've never played? How can someone be objective about a game that replaced their favorite game that they've invested thousands into? How can someone give something a fair chance when they curse GW's very existence with every breath? They can't. I see your opinion, but I also see your opinion for what it really is. And I can't and don't share it because I can't and don't have the same biases.

There are really compelling arguments against AoS, but thus far, they've been rare in this forum. It has mostly amounted to "it sucks because I don't like it", with "I don't like it" largely being about transgressions that GW committed.

OK, so you like structured arguments and playing devils advocate, taking a contrary stance to further spirited debate.

Here's the thing, I play AoS. I've played it against enthusiastic newcomers, I've played against nieces and nephews as their first wargame, I've played linked campeign games against an opponent that I've played many times in the past, and I've played pickup games against strangers. I was out of fantasy for a while, I never played 8th or End Times, so I was looking forward to a new game. I literally had no skin in the game aside from time. If AoS sucked, all I have is a massive skaven army that I hadn't used in years anyway.

I also am a story driven player, my main thing in my local GW shop is encouraging new and old players alike to get their models painted. (one of my few pet peeves, painted models and terrain makes for a more enjoyable game, IMHO.) I haven't been to a tournament in years. I build large diorama-like models, I only play in a GW store, and only play/collect GW miniatures. I feel like I was 100% the target audience for AoS, and I feel it fell short.

All that being said, I have opinions and thoughts on the flaws on AoS. Does my current and past experiences not have any bearing at all? does the fact that I think it could really use a tune up make me wrong?

 jonolikespie wrote:
Yeah... would a chaos counter offensive not *reduce* the story options for introducing more factions too?

Not necessarily - absolutely not whiteknighting here either.
Chaos (primarily Khorne) have had the run of the mortal realms for thousands of years, but we know that all the other mortal factions are still there, most likely in hiding or some kind of fortified positions where they can hold out.

The Stormcast land in the Realm of Fire, giving Chaos a bloody nose for the first time in living memory. They press the advantage, push into the Realm of Life - assisting the Sylvaneth in fighting off the corruption of Pestilens and Nurgle - and assault the Realm of Metal to get Ghal Maraz back.
The Stormcast are the first crack in the dam, and sensing a weak spot, the Seraphon re-emerge/appear/whatever to fight the common foe.
From the Ghal Maraz recovery and a few other incidentals, the next plan in Sigmar's crusade to eradicate chaos is the All-points. I have no idea what this is, but given Archaon's just reappeared on a ridonkulous beastie, willing to bet it's a pretty big deal.
Chaos, recovering from the initial shock at a credible resistance, recover and begin to push back, focussing their forces.
In a situation like that, the mortal races coming out of hiding to lend their assistance works very well - the downtrodden people rising up in great numbers guided by a smaller liberating force is quite a worn trope, after all.
For example, the Aelf faction (even in previous incarnations) are pretty good with stealthy movement and are quite happy in areas naturally saturated with magic. Thematically they'd be right at home basing themselves out of the realm of shadow as hiding is more their forte rather than facing a siege, so a narrative move into the realm of shadow could see them appearing.
Seraphon appearing now lends to this I guess, as they don't 'live' anywhere - effectively you just flick a switch and they appear, so they don't have a home or other vested interest to protect.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
I guess Archaon coming will mean Chaos start winning and going on the counter offensive. Possibily opening the story for more Order factions to be introduced.

Because they've not been there all along (right?), that there is a massive narrative fail.

Not quite sure what you mean to be honest.

And there's lots of narrative possibilities that open up, like the Duardin of Azyrheim deciding to sally forth into the other Mortal Realms and kick some butt and retake some lost holds. Of Aelves emerging out of hiding. Or the Cult of Sigmar following in the Stormcasts wake like a giant pilgrimage.

There could be many factions that have just knuckled down and weathered the storm through the age of chaos. When the chaos forces regroup under Archaon's banner it gives them some breathing room and courage to strike back.

Can't wait to be honest. So far AoS has focused on factions I don't care about. Other Order factions getting involved is exactly what I want :-)

If you can't play nice in here, I'm going to take your toys away.

Specifically: if you don't want to argue the other person's position politely, then your best option is not to post. Posting rudely is going to have negative implications on your continued ability to participate in any forum discussions.

 pox wrote:

OK, so you like structured arguments and playing devils advocate, taking a contrary stance to further spirited debate.

Absolutely.

Here's the thing, I play AoS. I've played it against enthusiastic newcomers, I've played against nieces and nephews as their first wargame, I've played linked campeign games against an opponent that I've played many times in the past, and I've played pickup games against strangers. I was out of fantasy for a while, I never played 8th or End Times, so I was looking forward to a new game. I literally had no skin in the game aside from time. If AoS sucked, all I have is a massive skaven army that I hadn't used in years anyway.

I also am a story driven player, my main thing in my local GW shop is encouraging new and old players alike to get their models painted. (one of my few pet peeves, painted models and terrain makes for a more enjoyable game, IMHO.) I haven't been to a tournament in years. I build large diorama-like models, I only play in a GW store, and only play/collect GW miniatures. I feel like I was 100% the target audience for AoS, and I feel it fell short.

All that being said, I have opinions and thoughts on the flaws on AoS. Does my current and past experiences not have any bearing at all? does the fact that I think it could really use a tune up make me wrong?

I'm sorry, but I don't remember what your specific complaints against AoS are, other than a hazy feeling of disappointment in its direction. I know you've stated a couple times that you do play and do try to enjoy it, but that it just isn't working for you - if I'm remembering that wrong, please correct me.

I think the thing to remember is that, ultimately, we are slaves to our own expectations, and when things don't meet those expectations, irregardless of objective qualities, we still walk away disappointed. And some of those expectations simply come from personal taste. We know what we like. It's comfortable, it's enjoyable, and the cost in money and time required to appreciate something different may ultimately not be worth it. People are having fun with AoS, but it may not be in a manner that you, yourself, can share, for whatever reason. And that's nobody's fault. Sometimes, things just don't align right.

I'm reminded a bit of One Piece, actually. It is constantly at the top of popularity lists and respected world over, but it doesn't really get good until the Arlong arc, which is a good 10 volumes in, or 50ish episodes. How much are you willing to put into it on the chance that it becomes really good later? 50 episodes? $100 worth a books? As it turns out, I did invest that much and yeah, now One Piece is one of my favorite works of all time. But I wouldn't begrudge anyone who didn't want to put in that sort of time, or decided that after 25 episodes they couldn't see the potential. But I can say that it isn't One Piece's fault. Not liking One Piece isn't about the objective quality of the manga, but about what you bring to watching it, and what you expect to get out of it.

And that's how I see Age of Sigmar. For the people it clicks with, it really clicks. We are few, at the moment, but I suspect that as we continue defending the game and learn to articulate our enjoyment better - it is a new kind of game and requires new kinds of persuasive arguments - the audience for AoS will grow. Right now, I think AoS fans are concerned less with promoting the game than simply learning how to best interact with it. Because even though we like it, we still may not have mastered it yet (like the best way to handle summoning).

But if it doesn't click for you, or you don't want it to click for you, or even if you are secretly afraid of it clicking, then there's not much I can say at the moment. I can tell you what I like about the game, but even that would only be half understood appreciations of bits I don't yet completely comprehend. I can't put the game into perspective for the players when I'm not truly sure about perspective for myself. And that's the major reason why I'm here, entering these debates. I am paying attention to what arguments work and don't work, for others and for myself, and getting to the heart of the conflict that is preventing people from seeing AoS clearly. One day, these debates will form the basis of explaining Age of Sigmar to others.

Until then, it's basically just me going, "you say you don't like it for this reason, but maybe it's this other reason instead", and poking and prodding along those lines, trying to understand behaviors that may be inherently subjective and personal.

I will say that I don't think you are the target audience for AoS. I think AoS is meant for people who aren't GW fans, who are a bit more adventurous in their gaming, and who are willing to put up flaws now in the hopes that there's a better future in store. I think AoS, as it stands, is for early adopters. It's for people who realize that there isn't 30 years of models and fluff, and that support systems haven't been built yet, and that the game won't be fully formed for another dozen release windows, at least. If we are still having these discussions two years from now, then I'll admit there is problem. But I think Age of Sigmar is, first and foremost, for the gaming optimists. The ones who see the good in every game and every opponent, and who believe they can help others see that good as well.