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.

 vipoid wrote:

 Rayvon wrote:
I think that the no points thing works fine amongst friends and like minded individuals, not every game needs to be perfectly balanced either, quite a few people care not for balance.

So, why not give units point values and then the people who don't care about balance can just ignore them?

Because they totally misjudged how important having points values or even just some sort of basic structure was to a lot of its customers ?
They were just hoping that players just bringing what they like was going to remove the barriers to getting a game rather than the opposite ?
Im not really sure tbh, the only thing I am sure of is that they were aiming at a simple ruleset with less barriers of entry, and made some changes to try and reflect that,
whether or not that worked depends on who you speak to.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Rayvon wrote:
I think that the no points thing works fine amongst friends and like minded individuals, not every game needs to be perfectly balanced either, quite a few people care not for balance.

1. That's nice. Now play a pick up game in a rule set that has no balancing or army construction rules.
2. No one said that a game has to be 'perfectly balanced'.
3. That actually doesn't matter, because a balanced game benefits everyone, whether you care about it or not.

Take BattleTech. That game is not balanced. Somewhere in the 90's (I believe) they introduced the Clans to the game. Clan 'Mechs run faster, with less heat, have longer ranged guns that weigh less, take up less space and do more damage. They were just objectively better at everything and there were literally no downsides to virtually all their technology. And I've never cared about that. I play the game regardless of this issue. However, not everyone plays BTech like me. Some people wanted more balance, so the writers eventually created the "Battle Value" system, a monolithic labyrinth of formulae that I've never bothered to learn that assess a 'Mechs relative value based upon its equipment, weapons, armour, how much heat it generates and so on. The system has gone through two versions now, and a lot of people use it to balance the game. Does that impact the way I play at all? Nope. Does it impact the people who only play historical scenarios/battles? Probably not. But it does allow for anyone to pick up and play the game using a rough BV total (like tournaments do). It doesn't perfectly balance BattleTech - imperfect balance is really the aim here - but it does add some much needed structure to the game.

I agree that a balanced game is better for everyone on the whole, I never really argued otherwise, I just think its relevance is over estimated if anything.

Many of us really enjoy to play unbalanced games often and I fully understand that you could better create an unbalanced fight with a balanced rule set.

We used to ignore the battle value in BT as it happens, and that was probably my first introduction to the balance argument as well, long before it become the obsession it now is !!

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Hanskrampf wrote:
There are enough point system for AoS out on the internet, it's up to your group to pick one.

And if the group doesn't come to an agreement as to which should be used, what then?

Then the minority must either submit or leave the club.

A semi-local store owner described the local reaction to AoS as 'like they discovered a burning bag of dog poop on their porch, and decided not to stomp on it'.

I would love to say that Kings of War has replaced WHFB, and on some levels it has... people are buying/downloading the game, but not too many of the figures - but he has already sold out of Uncharted Empires, even though he hasn't even gotten his books in yet. (He has already placed a second order - doubling the number.)

People want to play their Warhammer armies - and are willing to buy another company's game, just so they can play the army that they already have.

Mind you, the reaction that people have when they discover that the Kings of War rulebook contains the main army lists of the game... and that the book that lets them use their existing armies costs half as much as a single Army book for Warhammer... that never gets old. They can get the Gamer's Edition of KoW and Uncharted Empires for about the same amount as just that one Warhammer army book, and have all of the current army lists for the game.

It doesn't hurt that games run so much faster, and with fewer rules arguments.

Mantic is aiming at the community that existed for third edition Warhammer, not what some would think of as the 'Golden Age of Warhammer' - and it shows. (I liked 3rd ed. Warhammer best - but I think that 4-6 was the Golden Age - I bought the boxes, for the minis as much as the rules. I didn't bother with 7 or 8.)

GW really needs to look at why the game did so well during that Golden Age, and why that Golden Age has ended.

On the flip side - I was not a fan of End Times - but there was a big resurgence in the Fantasy scene because of it. (Which means that there are new people now playing Kings of War because the Warhammer armies that they had just bought were obsolete within a year.... End Times helped boost the KoW scene - but would have boosted the WHFB scene if GW had played their cards right.)

A term that I might use is 'GW saw that Fantasy was sinking, so they threw it an anchor'.

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* Changed a 'could' to a 'would'... I am nigh certain that End Times would have been a large permanent gain for Warhammer, if they had handled the aftermath better.

I bought KoW gamers' edition even though I don't have a fantasy army, because it's cheap enough a book to buy just for a look at the rules.

As a company?

First, AoS seems like its working well. KoW made some rules that seem to attract enough people. Every game I see of KoW, 90% of the models are GW ones. There is also an active AoS night around here.

I would say their continued streak of leaving many fans in the dust. This is to say, not updating some codex. Without numbers, for all I know, the second updated to Eldar made big big bank, and CSM has never been a popular selling army (like sisters). However, giving their poster children (which seem to be shifting from Marines/Chaos, to Marines/Xenos pretty fast) second and third helpings, before giving others a first, would be my suggestion for biggest flub.

Having to play AoS with house rules is not a barrier to play.

I have not played a single game of 7th edition40k that did not use ITC rules or a modified version of them, and cannot recall playing any games of 6th either that used the straight book rules.

GW does not have any flagship games that are generally played as is without house rules.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I disagree with that point. One of my gripes with AoS is that combat and movement is too similar to 40K. GW should have been a lot more ambitious in writing a new rule system.

That's my opinion as a wargamer and customer.

Whether it was a bad decision in terms of company performance, I don't think we'll know until the end of year financial statement next July.

I totally agree with KK here, and note that perfect is the worst enemy of good. I accept AoS as a revolutionary (half-)step forward in GW gaming, whereby the core rules and concepts were (finally!) cleaned up for the 2000s, but the unit rules and detail are still too fiddly.

I hope that the next 40k incorporates lessons and feedback from AoS, because Age of the Emperor (with points!) would basically solve the primary heartache. I assume that GW will use Mordheim and Necromunda and such to refine the AoS concept before moving 40k to AoE.

GW has already shared that AoS is outperforming Fantasy, and I have no doubt this is true. It's not (and wasn't expected to) bringing AoS on par with 40k. But if it's a +50% bump, a 2x or 3x increase against a small base, it's still positive.

 gwarsh41 wrote:


Every game I see of KoW, 90% of the models are GW ones. There is also an active AoS night around here.

Almost as if there was a release of a game that caused a mass exodus of players to this system....

I don't get your point. A lot of WHFB players migrated over to KoW to continue playing a mass battle game. Of bloody course they're going to port their exiting collections over. Mantic even wrote the lists for them in a KoW expansion.

Well, with the half-year report in now, I think we can safely say that AoS was not a horrible thing for GW -- to the contrary, it probably did quite well.

Or GW sold so many Smaug models that it didn't matter

blaktoof wrote:
Having to play AoS with house rules is not a barrier to play.

I have not played a single game of 7th edition40k that did not use ITC rules or a modified version of them, and cannot recall playing any games of 6th either that used the straight book rules.

GW does not have any flagship games that are generally played as is without house rules.

Incorrect. House rules are a fine addition to any Wargame, and can often be great fun, and can really scratch that creative itch, but let's be clear - playing that way often requires like minded opponents and has other hurdles to overcome.

Gw might require house rules, due to their wooly nature, but part of the success of the young punks in the industry, like Corvus belli (infinity), privateer press (warmachine/hordes), Wyrd (malifaux) and so on is because they built their game on a foundation of tight rules that focus on organised play and universal approach. Clear cut, defined universal structures that mean I can go to America or Australia, and play the same game with no fuss. For these things, you need top-down defined standards and approaches. Professional sports have governing bodies that enforce a similar approach. It's needed at the higher level, where you need to organise more people and define your direction and approach. You really shouldn't just look at gw in these kind of evaluations.

Requiring various player-based house rules (and the infinite modified versions thereof) often does nothing but fracture the community and can lead to various groups playing what amount to different games. 'We don't play super heavies' is one prime example of an oft-toted house rule. Utterly sucks for the guy who loves his Knights and built an army around them. The problem is that you turn gaming Round from having a 'universal common ground' and turn the various groups into cells that can often be at odds, and often, organising things beyond the very local level becomes problematic.

It helps for playing the game you want to play, assuming your mates want to play the exact same game. It doesn't necessarily help playing at another flgs. Or allowing bigger events. It doesn't necessarily facilitate pick up games, or tournaments.

So let's be honest here. House rules certainly have their place. They also have their problems and limitations.

Deadnight wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Having to play AoS with house rules is not a barrier to play.

I have not played a single game of 7th edition40k that did not use ITC rules or a modified version of them, and cannot recall playing any games of 6th either that used the straight book rules.

GW does not have any flagship games that are generally played as is without house rules.

Incorrect. House rules are a fine addition to any Wargame, and can often be great fun, and can really scratch that creative itch, but let's be clear - playing that way often requires like minded opponents and has other hurdles to overcome.

Gw might require house rules, due to their wooly nature, but part of the success of the young punks in the industry, like Corvus belli (infinity), privateer press (warmachine/hordes), Wyrd (malifaux) and so on is because they built their game on a foundation of tight rules that focus on organised play and universal approach. Clear cut, defined universal structures that mean I can go to America or Australia, and play the same game with no fuss. For these things, you need top-down defined standards and approaches. Professional sports have governing bodies that enforce a similar approach. It's needed at the higher level, where you need to organise more people and define your direction and approach. You really shouldn't just look at gw in these kind of evaluations.

Requiring various player-based house rules (and the infinite modified versions thereof) often does nothing but fracture the community and can lead to various groups playing what amount to different games. 'We don't play super heavies' is one prime example of an oft-toted house rule. Utterly sucks for the guy who loves his Knights and built an army around them. The problem is that you turn gaming Round from having a 'universal common ground' and turn the various groups into cells that can often be at odds, and often, organising things beyond the very local level becomes problematic.

It helps for playing the game you want to play, assuming your mates want to play the exact same game. It doesn't necessarily help playing at another flgs. Or allowing bigger events. It doesn't necessarily facilitate pick up games, or tournaments.

So let's be honest here. House rules certainly have their place. They also have their problems and limitations.

your statement of incorrect doesn't really seem to say anything about what you are replying to.

My point is that any major tournament, and often FLGS and even people playing 7th edition 40k are not playing the game without house rules on how you build armies, and how certain things work that are completely not in the rules or counter to what the rules actually state.

I stand by my statement that GW does not have a flagship product that is played without rules from outside GW (house rules) in any major capacity.

You would be hard pressed to find a tournament anywhere in the world right now that does not use house rules for a game of 7th edition 40k.

I agree with all of your statements, however the truth is AoS needing house rules to play is no different than the current state of GW other actual main product-40k. If you want to play it, you will be using house rules most of the time you play it. Yes you can play 40k as is, but you can also play AoS as is. However this is not how the majority of the gaming community for either product plays the game.

You're very fond of absolutes with no data at all to support it, blaktoof.

"House rules are no barrier to play."

Exactly how do you know that? How can you possibly know how many players haven't started, or have stopped, playing because they got sick of the necessity they felt was needed to employ house rules in order to make a game playable?

How many people just got sick of having to keep track of the different precedents that different stores or groups they might have been active at had set?

Fair enough, you feel house rules aren't barriers to play, but don't presume to speak for anyone but yourself.

 Azreal13 wrote:
You're very fond of absolutes with no data at all to support it, blaktoof.

"House rules are no barrier to play."

Exactly how do you know that? How can you possibly know how many players haven't started, or have stopped, playing because they got sick of the necessity they felt was needed to employ house rules in order to make a game playable?

How many people just got sick of having to keep track of the different precedents that different stores or groups they might have been active at had set?

Fair enough, you feel house rules aren't barriers to play, but don't presume to speak for anyone but yourself.

If you went to any tournament of 40k anywhere in the world right now you would be playing with house rules. There are plenty of people going to said tournaments, and none of them find it a barrier preventing them from playing.

You are full of absolutes, with comments like "you can't play AoS without houserules" you can play AoS without houserules, just like you can play 40k without houserules. You however most likely wont regularly find anyone to play with for either game using non-house rules.

any statement that having to use houserules for AoS makes it a mistake is the same as saying 40k is a mistake. They both will be/are played with house rules. I also stand by it, because the statement that you require house rules to play is false, you know just as well as anyone else that you can play AoS out of the box just as you can play 40k out of the box. That people do not, and instead use houserules may be a fact- but saying its a barrier for one game system when the other game system also will have you playing with houserules is disingenuous.

So I -know- with proof that houserules are not a barrier to play, because people play both of GWs systems 40k and AoS which use houserules to play.

If house rules were a barrier to play, 40k would be as close to death as WFB was dead for the past half decade.

I didn't read blaktoof's comment about house rules and AoS as an absolute. In other words, I didn't read it as, house rules aren't a barrier to AoS play for everyone in the universe -- in the same way that people who say nasty things about AoS and how horrible and unplayable it is don't actually mean that there are literally zero people on Earth who like AoS or that nobody on the planet feels it's a playable or enjoyable game.

I think that it's likely true that for the category of player that Age of Sigmar seems to target, house rules are a lot less of an issue than the type of player that WMH targets.

That's assuming that PP is targeting the tournament and pickup crowd with WMH, and GW is targeting the casual and play with friends crowd with AoS. And, I guess, the "build models for collections and occasionally play them... or not" crowd for GW.

Incidentally, personally my experience is that the people who play 40k that I've encountered generally don't have a problem with house rules as a concept. That's not to say that there can't be disagreements about them, and people who don't like certain house rules. Just take the most basic: "your models must be painted," something that is not anywhere in the rulebooks... I don't think, for any game that I can think of.

blaktoof wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
You're very fond of absolutes with no data at all to support it, blaktoof.

"House rules are no barrier to play."

Exactly how do you know that? How can you possibly know how many players haven't started, or have stopped, playing because they got sick of the necessity they felt was needed to employ house rules in order to make a game playable?

How many people just got sick of having to keep track of the different precedents that different stores or groups they might have been active at had set?

Fair enough, you feel house rules aren't barriers to play, but don't presume to speak for anyone but yourself.

If you went to any tournament of 40k anywhere in the world right now you would be playing with house rules. There are plenty of people going to said tournaments, and none of them find it a barrier preventing them from playing.

This is just plain incorrect.

There are a lot of arguments, and several tournament groups dropped out with the most recent release of WH40K.

It is a barrier, merely not a completely insurmountable one - the question is whether the effort required is worthwhile - and for many people, the answer is HELL NO!

On the flip side, I have been tagged to help run a Kings of War tourney... and I am thinking about it. (But I would not want to run a Warpath tourney....) The problem is that it pays in merchandise, and I have an ever growing mountain of unpainted shame.

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* In the past I have helped organize WH40K tournaments, but not since... 1998?

blaktoof wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
You're very fond of absolutes with no data at all to support it, blaktoof.

"House rules are no barrier to play."

Exactly how do you know that? How can you possibly know how many players haven't started, or have stopped, playing because they got sick of the necessity they felt was needed to employ house rules in order to make a game playable?

How many people just got sick of having to keep track of the different precedents that different stores or groups they might have been active at had set?

Fair enough, you feel house rules aren't barriers to play, but don't presume to speak for anyone but yourself.

If you went to any tournament of 40k anywhere in the world right now you would be playing with house rules. There are plenty of people going to said tournaments, and none of them find it a barrier preventing them from playing.

.

False analogy is false. Tournament rules are in no way synonymous with house rules.

Whilst there are some similarities, tournament packs are known in advance to all the parties. Unlike say, going into a new FLGS with your army to find they've banned Lords of War and you've got a LoW in your army. At a tournament that would be cheating. As far as you're aware taking LoW in your army is allowed. You've made your list and packed it to go to the FLGS for the first time only to be told "sorry guv, we don't allow LoW aroud here".

See the difference?

Tournaments, are also (usually) populated by established players. This is not just true for wargames. It's true for everything.

No, there is no difference. If you play at the store / house, you should know the rules before you start bring your toys.

blaktoof wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
You're very fond of absolutes with no data at all to support it, blaktoof.

"House rules are no barrier to play."

Exactly how do you know that? How can you possibly know how many players haven't started, or have stopped, playing because they got sick of the necessity they felt was needed to employ house rules in order to make a game playable?

How many people just got sick of having to keep track of the different precedents that different stores or groups they might have been active at had set?

Fair enough, you feel house rules aren't barriers to play, but don't presume to speak for anyone but yourself.

If you went to any tournament of 40k anywhere in the world right now you would be playing with house rules. There are plenty of people going to said tournaments, and none of them find it a barrier preventing them from playing.

You are full of absolutes, with comments like "you can't play AoS without houserules" you can play AoS without houserules, just like you can play 40k without houserules. You however most likely wont regularly find anyone to play with for either game using non-house rules.

any statement that having to use houserules for AoS makes it a mistake is the same as saying 40k is a mistake. They both will be/are played with house rules. I also stand by it, because the statement that you require house rules to play is false, you know just as well as anyone else that you can play AoS out of the box just as you can play 40k out of the box. That people do not, and instead use houserules may be a fact- but saying its a barrier for one game system when the other game system also will have you playing with houserules is disingenuous.

So I -know- with proof that houserules are not a barrier to play, because people play both of GWs systems 40k and AoS which use houserules to play.

If house rules were a barrier to play, 40k would be as close to death as WFB was dead for the past half decade.

So, what you're saying is house rules aren't a barrier to play for some people.

Which is, in essence, exactly what I'd already said.

Also, I've never said AOS can't be played without house rules, so kindly don't straw man my arguments.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:
I didn't read blaktoof's comment about house rules and AoS as an absolute. In other words, I didn't read it as, house rules aren't a barrier to AoS play for everyone in the universe -- in the same way that people who say nasty things about AoS and how horrible and unplayable it is don't actually mean that there are literally zero people on Earth who like AoS or that nobody on the planet feels it's a playable or enjoyable game.

Shock! Horror! Talys adopts contrary position to others in a discussion!

I wasn't just referring to just this, but also several posts he/she's already made in other threads making sweeping declarations as factual without any evidence to support them.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
No, there is no difference. If you play at the store / house, you should know the rules before you start bring your toys.

Maybe so, but why do you assume that should be a requirement to play at an FLGS? It certainly isn't at my local.

Because that's how it works. House rules are what they are, and if you're going to play somewhere, that's what it is.

 Azreal13 wrote:

blaktoof wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
You're very fond of absolutes with no data at all to support it, blaktoof.

"House rules are no barrier to play."

Exactly how do you know that? How can you possibly know how many players haven't started, or have stopped, playing because they got sick of the necessity they felt was needed to employ house rules in order to make a game playable?

How many people just got sick of having to keep track of the different precedents that different stores or groups they might have been active at had set?

Fair enough, you feel house rules aren't barriers to play, but don't presume to speak for anyone but yourself.

If you went to any tournament of 40k anywhere in the world right now you would be playing with house rules. There are plenty of people going to said tournaments, and none of them find it a barrier preventing them from playing.

You are full of absolutes, with comments like "you can't play AoS without houserules" you can play AoS without houserules, just like you can play 40k without houserules. You however most likely wont regularly find anyone to play with for either game using non-house rules.

any statement that having to use houserules for AoS makes it a mistake is the same as saying 40k is a mistake. They both will be/are played with house rules. I also stand by it, because the statement that you require house rules to play is false, you know just as well as anyone else that you can play AoS out of the box just as you can play 40k out of the box. That people do not, and instead use houserules may be a fact- but saying its a barrier for one game system when the other game system also will have you playing with houserules is disingenuous.

So I -know- with proof that houserules are not a barrier to play, because people play both of GWs systems 40k and AoS which use houserules to play.

If house rules were a barrier to play, 40k would be as close to death as WFB was dead for the past half decade.

So, what you're saying is house rules aren't a barrier to play for some people.

Which is, in essence, exactly what I'd already said.

Also, I've never said AOS can't be played without house rules, so kindly don't straw man my arguments.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:
I didn't read blaktoof's comment about house rules and AoS as an absolute. In other words, I didn't read it as, house rules aren't a barrier to AoS play for everyone in the universe -- in the same way that people who say nasty things about AoS and how horrible and unplayable it is don't actually mean that there are literally zero people on Earth who like AoS or that nobody on the planet feels it's a playable or enjoyable game.

Shock! Horror! Talys adopts contrary position to others in a discussion!

I wasn't just referring to just this, but also several posts he/she's already made in other threads making sweeping declarations as factual without any evidence to support them.

You are correct that -you- did not say house rules are a barrier to play.

however it was stated that one of the reasons AoS was a mistake within this thread was "you need house rules to play AoS" which is what I was responding to, which was not directed at you- However you personally chose to take the statement and defend it as if you backed up it. In effect defending the position that "aos requires house rules to play".

The fact that to play AoS as a tactical game requires an undocumented house rules phase when joining the play group, and a negotiation phase before the game - The ruleset is not just sloppy... it's fething incomplete.

-stated in this thread, and echoed by multiple people.

then further you decided to claim I made sweeping absolute statements. When I did not.

In this thread the only "absolute sweeping statements" I have seen have actually come from the people with a deep vitriolic hatred for AoS because of whatever reason.

Saying house rules are not a barrier to play AoS is not an absolute, it means you can play AoS without house rules. Or that house rules are not a significant barrier, as opposed to cost, being able to find someone to play with, dyslexia, being in a wheelchair, etc.

Saying you cannot play AoS without houserules, which is a statement someone in this thread made you and felt the need to essentially defend- Is an absolute statement.

A very large amount of wargamers play 40k and do so with houserules, and do not seem to find it an issue to play. IN fact many of them find it removes barriers to play and makes the game more enjoyable, as shown by the many people who desire things such as limits on detachments, army selection methods that disallow things allowed in ther ules, etc because they do not want to play against an unbound list of 6 wraithknights in a game of 40k for example.

Also I am not sure you are using the term straw man correctly, as I was replying directly to a comment about AoS needing house rules to even play- and then stated that's not really a true barrier, because 1) there are already houserules for GWs main game, 2) there are other real barriers, and 3) You can play AoS without houserules out of the box.

A strawman would be if I threw up something barely related and said something silly then claimed because it was correct therefore I was correct, which is not what happened.

Grimtuff-

Tournament rules are houserules, they are houserules generated by a tournament group and then told to people before the game begins. Those people then have the option to say "gee that sounds fun, I will play!" or "That doesn't sound very fair, but I will play" or "fek this, not playing"

Showing up with a LoW and being upset you cannot play it is the same as showing up with 1850pts to a FLGS and finding out they only play 2500pts. There is no agreed upon points value for 40k, so showing up with a certain army list built for any points is assuming house rules. Obviously making it not a significant or reasonable "barrier" to playing a game.

There is no difference between the idea of house rules and tournament rules, or FLGS x rules. They are all modifications to the rules not supported by GW used by a group of people.

There is equally nothing stopping two players at a tournament saying "hey this rule for this mission is dumb, lets do this instead" other person says " sounds good"

I wasn't defending anyone, I was criticising you for using absolute statements.

Say what you like in retrospect, but "house rules are not a barrier to play" is, definitively, an absolute statement.

It is also incorrect.

Saying "you need to house rule AOS to play it" is equally incorrect but as I never said it, wasn't responding to it or using it in my argument, by using it in a post where you were ostensibly responding to what I said and arguing against it, you were apparently strawmanning. A straw man argument is where you misrepresent someone's argument and then argue against the point you've misrepresented. This, by apparently putting words in my mouth, is a perfectly acceptable use of the term, IMO.

If that wasn't your intent, we'll chalk up to poor expression and move on.

so you simply chose to jump in on a topic that you had no intention of discussing to come down on someone because you perceived something in their expression you did not actually want to comment on or care about.

You realize that is trolling.

No, I had something to say in a topic I've been reading since the day it was created because I saw someone making arguments I disagreed with and felt were flawed.

I've said my piece on the topic, it's probably somewhere on page one.

blaktoof wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Having to play AoS with house rules is not a barrier to play.

I have not played a single game of 7th edition40k that did not use ITC rules or a modified version of them, and cannot recall playing any games of 6th either that used the straight book rules.

GW does not have any flagship games that are generally played as is without house rules.

Incorrect. House rules are a fine addition to any Wargame, and can often be great fun, and can really scratch that creative itch, but let's be clear - playing that way often requires like minded opponents and has other hurdles to overcome.

Gw might require house rules, due to their wooly nature, but part of the success of the young punks in the industry, like Corvus belli (infinity), privateer press (warmachine/hordes), Wyrd (malifaux) and so on is because they built their game on a foundation of tight rules that focus on organised play and universal approach. Clear cut, defined universal structures that mean I can go to America or Australia, and play the same game with no fuss. For these things, you need top-down defined standards and approaches. Professional sports have governing bodies that enforce a similar approach. It's needed at the higher level, where you need to organise more people and define your direction and approach. You really shouldn't just look at gw in these kind of evaluations.

Requiring various player-based house rules (and the infinite modified versions thereof) often does nothing but fracture the community and can lead to various groups playing what amount to different games. 'We don't play super heavies' is one prime example of an oft-toted house rule. Utterly sucks for the guy who loves his Knights and built an army around them. The problem is that you turn gaming Round from having a 'universal common ground' and turn the various groups into cells that can often be at odds, and often, organising things beyond the very local level becomes problematic.

It helps for playing the game you want to play, assuming your mates want to play the exact same game. It doesn't necessarily help playing at another flgs. Or allowing bigger events. It doesn't necessarily facilitate pick up games, or tournaments.

So let's be honest here. House rules certainly have their place. They also have their problems and limitations.

your statement of incorrect doesn't really seem to say anything about what you are replying to..

Read the bolded part. Claiming that Having to play with house rules is not a barrier is incorrect. House rules have their own problems and limitations. So, yeah.

blaktoof wrote:

My point is that any major tournament, and often FLGS and even people playing 7th edition 40k are not playing the game without house rules on how you build armies, and how certain things work that are completely not in the rules or counter to what the rules actually state.
I stand by my statement that GW does not have a flagship product that is played without rules from outside GW (house rules) in any major capacity.
You would be hard pressed to find a tournament anywhere in the world right now that does not use house rules for a game of 7th edition 40k.

So? 40k isn't the only horse in town though, and the strength of plenty other games derives from their universality and the strength they derive from organised play and a structured, universal and organised approach, and not from the often chaotic and home brewed nature of player designed 'fixes'* and tweaks. Having to play with house rules is fine, with the right people, and with the right attitude behind it, but often, it's not the best way forward.

*which, to be fair are often anything but.

 Azreal13 wrote:
No, I had something to say in a topic I've been reading since the day it was created because I saw someone making arguments I disagreed with and felt were flawed.

I've said my piece on the topic, it's probably somewhere on page one.

I don't want to argue with you. As it seems pointless in many ways.

I said something in reply to someone who actually did make an absolute statement, because they claimed you are REQUIRED to use house rules to play AoS, and that it is a barrier to play.

I said it was not a barrier for play, and then stated because many people seem able to play 40k and WFB which used house rules at FLGS and tournaments, and among friends that it is not a barrier- if it were a barrier it would keep these people from playing.

I also said it is not a barrier, because YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO USE HOUSE RULES. How can it be a barrier for some people if its something you do not actually need to play.

you then chose to take my statement in whatever way, and defend the counterpoint- but then anything I said is a strawman because you did not actually say the counterpoint instead hiding behind saying I am incorrect, which of course is hypocritically implying that it is indeed a barrier to playing.

House rules are a barrier to play in the same way core rules are a barrier to play, you either like them and are going to play the game, or you do not like the rules for the game and will not play.

AoS does not require house rules, neither does 40k. As such house rules cannot be a barrier to play. Both games can be played out of the box by two people without any house rules.

however in many peoples gaming experiences they will find playing at a FLGS, especially at a tournament event at a FLGS or elsewhere will use houserules. This does not seem to be a significant barrier of any kind for people.

Perhaps you could direct me to the post you were responding to?

Because the post where you write "Having to play AoS with house rules is not a barrier to play. " does not have a quote to indicate who you're responding to, and the immediately preceding post bears no relation, which is where I've got the idea you were making an absolute statement.

Technically, one can play AoS straight off the pamphlet. It's just going to be a different sort of game compared to what WFB was.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Perhaps you could direct me to the post you were responding to?

Because the post where you write "Having to play AoS with house rules is not a barrier to play. " does not have a quote to indicate who you're responding to, and the immediately preceding post bears no relation, which is where I've got the idea you were making an absolute statement.

Apparently I keep too many windows up and cut and paste from the wrong ones, as I replied in this thread to a quote from another thread ' why do people think GW is somehow unintelligent'.

So my original response was to another thread, making the wording significantly less relevant here. Apologies.

It is possible to play AoS without house rules, just as it is possible to play 40k without house rules. Some people seem to suggest that having to play AoS with house rules is a flaw, but it is a flaw carried by 40k as well. However neither are necessarily barriers to playing, as you can play both without house rules.

As such I agree with that for some if they felt they had to use house rules to play for whatever reason (FLGS uses house rules, tournament uses house rules) and not the box rules to play AoS it might be a barrier, those same people however would find 40k a barrier as they are not going to play it without house rules most of the time. (FLGS and especially tournaments generally use house rules)

Many people seem okay with playing 40k still and the house rules there invaldiate or flat out change rules as written, the biggest rules gripe many people seem to have with AoS is the lack of points which is a lack of a rules to many people as the statement "use whatever you want!" seems more like a non-rule than rule to many people, as opposed to wanting to change how the rules actually are written to work which is the case of many rules for 40k.

tldr- AoS is disliked by some people and one of the things that may prevent some people from playing it are that you will most likely use house rules to play, which GWs other main game also does. This is a individual player perspective, and does not mean it was a bad decision GW made as a company. Without any evidence supporting they lost money/customers in relation to gaining money customers by changing WFB to AOS there is no way to support AoS as being a bad decision for GW as a company.

blaktoof wrote:tldr- AoS is disliked by some people and one of the things that may prevent some people from playing it are that you will most likely use house rules to play, which GWs other main game also does. This is a individual player perspective, and does not mean it was a bad decision GW made as a company. Without any evidence supporting they lost money/customers in relation to gaining money customers by changing WFB to AOS there is no way to support AoS as being a bad decision for GW as a company.

Especially in light of the report just published, I agree. I still think 3 solid months of AoS was not a mistake (they could have mixed in some 40k!) but I'll be the first to admit I'm biased, because I like 40k more

There was certainly not a measurable negative financial impact based on the data they have provided.

Azreal13 wrote:

 Talys wrote:
I didn't read blaktoof's comment about house rules and AoS as an absolute. In other words, I didn't read it as, house rules aren't a barrier to AoS play for everyone in the universe -- in the same way that people who say nasty things about AoS and how horrible and unplayable it is don't actually mean that there are literally zero people on Earth who like AoS or that nobody on the planet feels it's a playable or enjoyable game.

Shock! Horror! Talys adopts contrary position to others in a discussion!

I wasn't just referring to just this, but also several posts he/she's already made in other threads making sweeping declarations as factual without any evidence to support them.

Oh, come on If I take a any position, it's going to be contrary to someone. I do agree with you sometimes, you know, in which case I'm stating a position that's probably contrary to someone else.

Here, I'm just saying that taking a position like the house rules one are no different than comments like, "AoS is junk". Obviously, they're not intended as absolute statements meant to characterize every single person who is a prospective customer. That's not really controversial... is it??