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.

Herzlos wrote:
My super-casual gaming buddies would never waste time on it.

We're obviously at loggerheads here, so continuing is pointless.
What I would say is that AoS has allowed me to become 'super casual' in our approach to playing, and IMO your group are losing out.
Your opinion is obviously very different.

Definitely.

My opinion, of course, is that we're not losing out at all. Because we're spending our gaming time playing other games (Cutthroat Caverns, Risk, Exploding Kittens, Munchkin, LOTR Board Games, X-WIng), and I get to paint my own stuff for fun

I regard casualness as being the effort required to play, not the style in which we play. I favour low-effort tournament games over high-effort "casual" games.

Can't get people into Exploding Kittens. :/
CAH is fine, add The Oatmeal and... pffft. Some people...

Shame, it's a great little game.

I sold CAH, as we don't get out the pub enough to make it amusing.

 ShaneTB wrote:

Table wrote:
Im far to lazy to dig through my post history, but if you want to be my guest.

It is your responsibility to back up your claims. What you've described does happen in markets but this thread is not an example of it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Has anyone played multiplayer games of AoS yet?

The format of it is certainly open to it, and the latest campaign book has a four player Battleplan in it.

Thats the rub isnt it. As I have stated, I dont have the desire to sift through 30 + threads to prove a point. A point, that I could care less if you think it to be true or false. If you are interested enough, look through my post history, youll find the thread. The sad part of it all is this thread has once again degenerated into the typical school yard bollocks this sub forum is known for.

Table wrote:

 ShaneTB wrote:

Table wrote:
Im far to lazy to dig through my post history, but if you want to be my guest.

It is your responsibility to back up your claims. What you've described does happen in markets but this thread is not an example of it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Has anyone played multiplayer games of AoS yet?

The format of it is certainly open to it, and the latest campaign book has a four player Battleplan in it.

Thats the rub isnt it. As I have stated, I dont have the desire to sift through 30 + threads to prove a point. A point, that I could care less if you think it to be true or false. If you are interested enough, look through my post history, youll find the thread. The sad part of it all is this thread has once again degenerated into the typical school yard bollocks this sub forum is known for.

Wait, so it's tough to look through the 35 posts you've made? That's ok, I'll do it for you. Oh, look. 2 threads on the top page, where you call other posters with 10 times the posts you have, and who joined these forums before you did, shills. It also seems like you're the only person who called them that, and it seems like the didn't actually stop posting. They just ignored you. And they should have. Because you're ignorant, and paranoid. Maybe take some time away from the computer.

text removed.

Reds8n

text removed.

Reds8n

Darn. Still, doesn't make me the idiot that makes claims then when other people find the evidence that points to them in their own words starts claiming 'venom', 'bastard', 'manchildren' and 'fanscrub'.
At least have the stones to stand by your own words.

When Warseer went down and I came over here I was pleasantly surprised at how generally civil it all was...didn't last too long!

Table wrote:
Except it isnt paranoia. At least one plant was put on dakka at AoS launch and was called out for it and stopped posting.s.

This is not true.

At all.


Furthermore -- and this is to all posters -- anymore crap like we've just had on this page and you will not be posting.

Table wrote:
Im far to lazy to dig through my post history, but if you want to be my guest. Its funny that people are so shocked that these kind of things happen. Its pretty common by now and (sadly) a standard. As I said, happens in game forums all the time. I dont know if Matt is a shill, im leaning in that direction thanks to Manchus post. Im not attacking him, just questioning the motives for this thread, and it seems im not alone. But go ahead and make comments about paranoia and tin foil hats, if that is going to make you feel warm inside. Perhaps Matt himself would like to comment, perhaps hes not a shill and above it. I really dont know. I can say this thread is pretty useless at this point.

Seeing as you only had 41 posts, I figured I'd do the legwork myself. I'm mean, this is a pretty serious accusation, so if there is proof, it's worth exposing. As near as I can tell, you accuse Bitethythumb of being a plant twice - but no evidence is ever presented, no wrong doing is ever admitted, and Bitethythumb never stopped posting. So, unless you were speaking of a different poster or a different situation, I'm going to label this accusation as "baseless".

Table wrote:
Its even worse when they try to manipulate forum readers for said company. Im not saying he is or isnt. Manchu seems to think so

No no no no no ... Manchu thinks that claim is laughable/miserable:

 Manchu wrote:
The idea that this guy is trying to trick anyone into liking AoS is equally laughable and miserable.

Table wrote:
I dont know if Matt is a shill, im leaning in that direction thanks to Manchus post.

That's an odd conclusion. Matt posted that he sells AoS stuff. But his blogs and the content he posts here do not link to any store or suggest that you contact him to buy anything. If posting on a forum about how much you like a game, giving interesting suggestions about how to make it even more fun, and providing pics of well painted models and scenery is shilling for a company then I guess I would welcome more shills to post around here.

Spiky Norman wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
Why is so hard to conceive that some of us just like AoS? Why do people need to flood the forum with conspiracy theories and ridiculous accusations, I mean the amount of posts regarding these silly things and boring spammed to exhaustion jokes is just too much on these topics.

Its not even contradictory arguments most of the cases ( bar some exceptions) just childish jokes...AHAH we get the jokes very funny... repeat it 100 times in every AoS thread and your just a troll.

The group of people on Dakka that makes it their mission to gak on what other people like, is certainly doing their best to push people that enjoy X game to other sites like Facebook groups or dedicated blogs.
I know I want to spend my free hobby time enjoying it with others who like the same, not waste time reading how much some other people dislike what I enjoy.

I wonder how prevalent this type of behaviour is in the Infinity, Malifaux or other parts of forum compared to the GW related games.

Or maybe, just maybe, those people are just answering questions and claims that deserve a discussion. There was a thread asking about AoS rules quality, what do you expect, 100% answers saying top notch? There's no mission only discussion that apparently for some only goes right when it goes positive.

I, for example, don't give two gaks about whether you like AoS or not, it's your time, your money and your fun and by no means I want to make you hate it or sth, wish you many fun games whatever you play etc etc. I only discuss claims like AoS is special, genius, balanced, tactical and other nonsensical praises that supporters sing. It's ok to like something bad or flawed, almost everyone does.

What if AoS really was a bad game that most people will have trouble with, wouldn't the discussion forum be a place to to find out about it before you spend money? I'm sorry that AoS is not liked but I like to find no bs discussion when I search for information about the product, not echo chamber so that people who like it feel cosy and comfortable. In short, it's good that it's so bad here.

As for other games and haters, there are two possibilities

- the underground network of vicious people chose GW sections of forums at random as a place to spew venom and bile

- GW games are so bad and low quality that many people complain about it

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Spiky Norman wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
Why is so hard to conceive that some of us just like AoS? Why do people need to flood the forum with conspiracy theories and ridiculous accusations, I mean the amount of posts regarding these silly things and boring spammed to exhaustion jokes is just too much on these topics.

Its not even contradictory arguments most of the cases ( bar some exceptions) just childish jokes...AHAH we get the jokes very funny... repeat it 100 times in every AoS thread and your just a troll.

The group of people on Dakka that makes it their mission to gak on what other people like, is certainly doing their best to push people that enjoy X game to other sites like Facebook groups or dedicated blogs.
I know I want to spend my free hobby time enjoying it with others who like the same, not waste time reading how much some other people dislike what I enjoy.

I wonder how prevalent this type of behaviour is in the Infinity, Malifaux or other parts of forum compared to the GW related games.

Or maybe, just maybe, those people are just answering questions and claims that deserve a discussion. There was a thread asking about AoS rules quality, what do you expect, 100% answers saying top notch? There's no mission only discussion that apparently for some only goes right when it goes positive.

I, for example, don't give two gaks about whether you like AoS or not, it's your time, your money and your fun and by no means I want to make you hate it or sth, wish you many fun games whatever you play etc etc. I only discuss claims like AoS is special, genius, balanced, tactical and other nonsensical praises that supporters sing. It's ok to like something bad or flawed, almost everyone does.

What if AoS really was a bad game that most people will have trouble with, wouldn't the discussion forum be a place to to find out about it before you spend money? I'm sorry that AoS is not liked but I like to find no bs discussion when I search for information about the product, not echo chamber so that people who like it feel cosy and comfortable. In short, it's good that it's so bad here.

As for other games and haters, there are two possibilities

- the underground network of vicious people chose GW sections of forums at random as a place to spew venom and bile

- GW games are so bad and low quality that many people complain about it

Or maybe you read the topic and post 10 cool things you have been doing with AoS instead of this errr so so funny thing you posted.

1. Simultanously shoot and block with a bow

2. Move three times in a row

3. Field 20 bloodthirsters

4. Paint sigmarines in gold

5. Sponsor Jervis's new yacht

6. Excuse laziest rules writers in a world with your approval

7. Support the awful and arogant company

8. Hasten the axing of armies

9. Not know why you won or lost at all

10. Waste 100+ games you could have played for fun to write and test your own point system

You have issues with GW, cool! Create a topic of 100 things you hate about them instead of posting it over and over and over again on AoS topics.
Your not the one to enlighten us because most have made up their minds and moved accordingly, you should do the same, or not. Either way stay on topic.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Or maybe, just maybe, those people are just answering questions and claims that deserve a discussion. There was a thread asking about AoS rules quality, what do you expect, 100% answers saying top notch? There's no mission only discussion that apparently for some only goes right when it goes positive.

This is rich coming from you, the first person I ever put on my ignore list for your obsession with gakking up every halfway positive AoS thread with your unconscionable gakposting. If you limited your posts to "just answering questions and claims that deserve a discussion", then I'd say, yeah, your opinion is warranted - but you don't. Remember the thread called Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Chance (long!) where your first response was to quote the entire opening post and add "No"? Get off your high horse dude.

What if AoS really was a bad game that most people will have trouble with, wouldn't the discussion forum be a place to to find out about it before you spend money?

Personally, I'd like to see discussions between people who actively play a game and see what they like and don't like about it rather than discussions from people who actively play the game being told they are wrong by people who actively don't.

I'm sorry that AoS is not liked but I like to find no bs discussion when I search for information about the product, not echo chamber so that people who like it feel cosy and comfortable. In short, it's good that it's so bad here.

People who enjoy AoS and want to discuss it without every thread being derailed by hate filled trolls is not an echo chamber. And if it were, so what? It's not like one's enjoyment of things really needs to be constantly challenged. "You don't really enjoy this thing because it is designed for children" - oh, okay. I was wrong. Thanks for letting me know. It's a good thing this isn't an echo chamber, or I would have committed the unforgivable sin of enjoying something for the wrong reasons. Dodged that bullet...

The fact is, for the past year, AoS has been under near constant attack causing the majority of people who enjoy AoS to be extremely defensive about it. Where AoS is imperfect, they can't have an honest discussion about it because someone (usually you) leaps on the opportunity as a way to show that AoS is terrible. Frankly, if posters like you would dial the rhetoric back a bit (and things were improving for a while there), we'd be more than happy to admit the flaws that AoS has by ourselves. AoS is a fun game, but not without flaws, and until we can have THAT conversation without the trolls gakking up the discussion, we end up drawing lines in the sand between two groups "AoS optimists" and "AoS haters", and lose the chance to have any nuanced or reasonable discussion about the game's flaws. So in your efforts to prove what a horrible game AoS is, you actually make it impossible to have a constructive conversation about its flaws.

For what it's worth, the discussion I've seen here is just a reflection of what I've seen in the several FLGS I frequent:

1. Some people enthusiastically adopt it as they've been waiting for a new game for fantasy from GW with how stagnant 8th edition was.
2. Some gave it a look but moved on to other games, such as Kings of War, Frostgrave, or another genre entirely.
3. Some have a shrug / "meh" response, having already moved onto other games, and don't give it a look.
4. Some are actively hostile towards it whenever it comes up.

I think the only truly unhelpful position to be in is the last, but there's certainly place for reasonable discussion (i.e. not just rainbows and sunshine ). But, excessively raining on the AoS parade isn't fun, either!

Personally, I'm happy to scheme for KoW (finally got my army list set this week, thanks Salvage!) and spend my "fantasy braincells" doing that . I'd rather see this section embrace the good of AoS than always spiral into negativity.

But I think the defensiveness is the other side of the coin, and until people can more readily admit some of the problems, there will likely continue to be a vociferous backlash against the game and those pushing it. It has some pretty huge flaws, and I'm really interested in reading posts by Mongoose Matt or others trying to work through / around them. But if you deny them entirely, it's hard to take the discussion seriously and it will be harder to fend off the "haters" from dominating discussion.

My little list of suggestions (nothing new for most of you, I know - just throwing some things I'm onto)

1. Build a terrain piece (or table) modeled after some of the bombastic scenes/views in AoS. For example – after a long, unsuccessful siege Khorne himself appeared and slammed a gigantic skull in the middle of the defiant city obliterating everything around it. Build a giant skull filled with blood, throw it in the middle, and play knowing that the Lord of Blood himself SLAMMED that goddamned huge thing there. Another one would be the bridge of chained birds with the orbiting moon around it – it is very easy to come up with a scenario for this.

2. Play a kill team scenario. There are many options out there. Mine is based on the 4th edition 40k kill team. Things like:

- Skaven ninja team infiltrating the fortress of Sigmar (we have a mention of this in the first book)
- Stormcast elite team attacking a bloodbound camp in the night etc.
Keep the "good guys" small in number and throw in a mechanic for the "bad guys" to make them dumb and uncoordinated when isolated from one another. Commandos style.

3. Try a game where you keep in the old WHFB formations using the new rules. See how it goes.

4. Find out Island of blood while it is still out there – the skaven gnaw at the roots of all the realms – you can literally slap them anywhere and they’ll fit right in the context. You can use the elves as the last remnants of their race, get a character or two from another faction and lead them on a rescue-survival mission. Ok, I needed a filler entry– guilty about this

I actually really like the IoB suggestion. That was a great box and the forces in it would be great allies or could even be used in scenarios.

We're going to try some HeroHammer next weekend.

The Isle of Blood high elf force even has a warscroll batallion dedicated to it on the AoS app.

 CoreCommander wrote:

2. Play a kill team scenario. There are many options out there. Mine is based on the 4th edition 40k kill team. Things like:

Exalt not good enough for this. Genius. Just curious, what mechanic have you been using for Grunt detection?

A few ideas I have had for my AoS and a few of my favorite things to do in AoS are

1. Recreate an up to date version of mordheim using warscrolls
2. Tabletop Vermintide anyone?
3. Those battleplans and times of war easily make the game super fun
4. Conversions, conversions, conversions! With armies consisting of things like VC and Skaven i have been able to combined bits to keep themes between two armies and make some delicious looking models.
5. With so few named characters each army has more of a personal feel to it and give each game very nice thematic feels
6. Finally for my list is the people playing AoS, some of the best who are not playing to break the game but playing to have fun ass games

RoperPG wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The purpose of a tank hunting force is to hunt tanks. If it isn't powerful against a tank force there is a basic problem in the rules. It shouldn't be a fair match.

Sorry, wasn't clear - how am I to know it's a bad match up for my opponent?
Who's 'fault' is it? Mine, theirs, or the game's?
For example on paper, Stormcast Decimators are amazing against units.
But in practice, Retributors - despite being equally costed in every comp system I've looked at - are a better 'overall' choice unless your opponent has taken a lot of 'horde' type units.

Yes, points or whatever give you a framework. But you still have to play the game to figure out what works and what doesn't, and this is true of *any* system. It's just that AoS doesn't give you the initial framework.
If points were the be all and end all of balance, there would be no need for discussion of pros and cons of army list X if it's the same points as army list Y.

It's an interesting question and bears some thinking about.

It is clearly inherent in the nature of war games that the strength of the units must encoded in the game, since otherwise it would be impossible to play. For instance, if a game has shooting, then weapons have to have ranges, and it is obvious that a longer ranged weapon is better than a shorter ranged one, all other things being equal, a unit with long ranges weapons is stronger. How much stronger would depend on various factors, such as table size and movement rates relative to weapon ranges.

It follows that it should be possible to read the rules and form an opinion of the relative strengths of units by comparing their characteristics. Of course the player's ability to interpret the rules depends on experience of reading rules and the complexity of the rules he is reading.

Judging the strength of units just by playing in fact is probably the worst way to do it, because it lays the player open to all the cognitive biases and failures of statistical sample size, so he is likely to come to an incorrect conclusion based purely on that limited and flawed information.

It follows then that actually AoS does provide the game balance information but it is in a very diffuse format, i.e. the different stats and rules on the war scrolls. It's probably impossible to work out fair balance by playing the game, because there are simply too many possible combinations of units, but it should be possible to analyse them mathematically.

I won't do this in any thread at this point, it's no accident that it was posted here, a good counterargument to the OP in tone imo heh.

Anyway I was adressing the idea of "people on a mission to gak on what people like" which is bs, I don't believe anyone here is driven by sth like that.

RoperPG wrote:

 CoreCommander wrote:

2. Play a kill team scenario. There are many options out there. Mine is based on the 4th edition 40k kill team. Things like:

Exalt not good enough for this. Genius. Just curious, what mechanic have you been using for Grunt detection?

Yes, without having an initiative value, the klaxon counters are not usable out of the box . In short, I had a stroll through the “basic infantry” (grunts) warscrolls for lizardmen and daemons and tried to isolate what marks certain unit as fast and aware. For the daemons scrolls, the tendency is to have a better movement value the higher your initiative should be. Another criteria could be the number of attacks and to hit values, but the latter is almost uniformly 4+ and the former varies wildly and does not exactly corresponds to speed/awareness. The movement value is kind of ok until you see the 16” movement of the screamers and seekers… but then these are units that fly (or gallop around) and have an overview of the battlefield so I judged this should be ok. To compensate I added a little house rule – if most (at least half) of the kill team models are in terrain they can’t be seen by such “long range” detectors . So there you have it:
-4/5/6 for plaguebearers/bloodletters/daemonettes which is not that much different than the usual 3/4/5 in 40k provided that the assault and move distance in AoS is greater
-Flying and fast units get their full movement as range, but cannot see at all in terrain (as they fly over the woods or gallop too fast to discern any movement).

Of course there’s certainly more than one way to do it – you can assign arbitrary values to each unit depending on personal preference or derive a rule from another statistic altogether. This is just my way It’s the idea for kill-team that is important – the implementation, as everything in AoS is mutable…

 Sqorgar wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Or maybe, just maybe, those people are just answering questions and claims that deserve a discussion. There was a thread asking about AoS rules quality, what do you expect, 100% answers saying top notch? There's no mission only discussion that apparently for some only goes right when it goes positive.

This is rich coming from you, the first person I ever put on my ignore list for your obsession with gakking up every halfway positive AoS thread with your unconscionable gakposting. If you limited your posts to "just answering questions and claims that deserve a discussion", then I'd say, yeah, your opinion is warranted - but you don't. Remember the thread called Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Chance (long!) where your first response was to quote the entire opening post and add "No"? Get off your high horse dude.

Yeah it's no accident there either, it's rare to see a rant you disagree with to the point that a "no" sums it up perfectly. I also elaborate and discuss a lot later in that thread so in the end it's exactly about discussing claims you disagree with, you can question the form but not the principle. That you can pick a post out of context of the entire discussion that was not constructive means nothing, nice try.

What if AoS really was a bad game that most people will have trouble with, wouldn't the discussion forum be a place to to find out about it before you spend money?

Personally, I'd like to see discussions between people who actively play a game and see what they like and don't like about it rather than discussions from people who actively play the game being told they are wrong by people who actively don't.

I'm sorry that AoS is not liked but I like to find no bs discussion when I search for information about the product, not echo chamber so that people who like it feel cosy and comfortable. In short, it's good that it's so bad here.

People who enjoy AoS and want to discuss it without every thread being derailed by hate filled trolls is not an echo chamber. And if it were, so what? It's not like one's enjoyment of things really needs to be constantly challenged. "You don't really enjoy this thing because it is designed for children" - oh, okay. I was wrong. Thanks for letting me know. It's a good thing this isn't an echo chamber, or I would have committed the unforgivable sin of enjoying something for the wrong reasons. Dodged that bullet...

The fact is, for the past year, AoS has been under near constant attack causing the majority of people who enjoy AoS to be extremely defensive about it. Where AoS is imperfect, they can't have an honest discussion about it because someone (usually you) leaps on the opportunity as a way to show that AoS is terrible. Frankly, if posters like you would dial the rhetoric back a bit (and things were improving for a while there), we'd be more than happy to admit the flaws that AoS has by ourselves. AoS is a fun game, but not without flaws, and until we can have THAT conversation without the trolls gakking up the discussion, we end up drawing lines in the sand between two groups "AoS optimists" and "AoS haters", and lose the chance to have any nuanced or reasonable discussion about the game's flaws. So in your efforts to prove what a horrible game AoS is, you actually make it impossible to have a constructive conversation about its flaws.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

It follows then that actually AoS does provide the game balance information but it is in a very diffuse format, i.e. the different stats and rules on the war scrolls. It's probably impossible to work out fair balance by playing the game, because there are simply too many possible combinations of units, but it should be possible to analyse them mathematically.

I find AoS perfectly suited to assess strengths and weaknesses. Warscrolls being available for free allows you to take a look at absolutely every unit in the game. I remember my 40k games back in the days where I had to ask my opponent what are the stats and rules of units he would play. Because you don't always have all army books, you do rely on playing the game to understand its balance. In AoS I'm pretty sure I've read 90% of all warscrolls, many more than once, I'm fairly confident I can assess the balance of a game just by looking at the army lists.

Obviously the war scrolls are available free, which is good. Having to check through all the different stats for each unit, plus their special rules, and mentally comparing these with all the stats for all the other units, is rather time-consuming. Some games use simple codes to indicate the capabilities of units, which I find easier to cope with.

I've decided that I'm going to build Island of Blood and just try some test games with "what's in the box" and see what the balance is like.

So for those who feel like you're pissing into the wind with positive posts, some of us are listening and though I very much dislike what GW have done with AoS I have been persuaded into trying it out by you guys.