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.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I just downloaded the Hordes and WM PDFs again, and it's still just the intro and rule section.

Where are the unit and stats for Legion and Skorne? Or Cryx and Khador?

From what I see, PP wants me to pay to get the info.

Since you apparently have interwebz at -3 skill.
http://files.privateerpress.com/articles/freerules/Prime%20MKII_eBook_free.pdf
And as for unit stats, they come with the units. The book has some. Not all.

@JohnHwangDD - you have the right file. It's like what you get with a WMH starter box -- essentially the first section of the (not free) rulebook. You get the first 100-ish pages, and the whole book, which contains some fluff, and many units (as MWHistorian says, not all). Their complete "main rulebook" is around 250 pages. The part that you have contains the complete mechanics of the whole game, some scenarios, and that kind of thing, though.

Personally, I actually find it perplexing that the unit rules aren't just downloadable, since they come free with the units themselves (on an annoying little trading card thing). At a minimum, the units NOT in the printed book should be available as full page PDFs, so that they can be printed and put into a gaming binder.

My internet skills are just fine. I can always torrent pirate copies. I simply wanted to ensure that there wasn't some other version.

And definitely better than your social skills. Maybe you should reread the latest Page 5 and not act like a jackass, OK? Being a jerk doesn't do your game any favors.

Anyhow, it's laughable that you're crowing about PP for releasing an inferior set compared to GW, which gave us the rules and all of the unit information.

You can always get the app and pay all of what, $6 for a full army list?

It's great to see AoS go that route and I hope 40k gets something like that soon because as it stood GW was the only model company I could name whose core rules required additional paid rules for each army and would sell those additional rules at more than a starter set for other game systems.

 Talys wrote:
Deadnight, the greatsword guy doesn't have to bend at all.

At least be consistent talys:

 Talys wrote:

The only way Age of Sigmar works is if the person who brings 50 greatswords goes, "Oh, these guys are way better than your 50 peasants. I'll just take 40 of them away, and give it a whirl. Sound good?"

Ie it only works when greatsword guy bends. In other word, goalposts being moved. Again.

 Talys wrote:

The balancing system of AoS works like this: 1) Which army do we think is more powerful? 2) What do we have to remove to make it equally powerful to the other army? 3) No consensus? No game.

2b. why do we have to remove? Why does greatswords guy have to bend? Why can't peasant guy? Surely adding stuff to make it equal is just as valid? Again, not the narrative being pushed here. It's all on greatsword guy to bend and enable/accomodate the other guy and having to change, with the other guy having the expectation of how he wants to play being defined as the 'right way' that has to be catered to, and not having to bend or accomodate in any way. But greatsword guy is the one seen as 'selfish'.

 Talys wrote:

Nobody should be vilified for wanting to play their army, and that goes both ways. OTOH what happens in a lot of point based games is that the expectation is that at a point level the army IS optimized; or at least that people are bringing their best for that size of game. And, if you complain that someone's army is too strong, that you're just being a whiner, and should improve your own.

Which generally works in well designed point based systems, along with other structural limitations and supports (eg multiple lists, sideboards, various victory conditions etc). The expectation is not that an army is 'optimised', it's that you will have a fair game, in a well designed points system, optimisation is irrelevant because everything's value is costed accordingly. Simply put: you've played far too much 40k.

If you complain that the other guys army is too strong, sometimes it can indeed boil down to 'being a whiner' and needing to improve your game. Sometimes this is the literal truth. Scrub 101. Your dismissal of this is intellectually dishonest talys.

And yes, Sometimes it can be a genuine imbalance. See 40k. And like I said, other times it can be 'why didn't you do x, go to y, and push here instead of pull'

 Talys wrote:

If you strip out the points, the latter becomes a non-issue (because there is no longer a reward for optimization).

My arse. What utter rubbish.

one player is still vilified for bringing greatswords, for being 'selfish', and having no interest in a 'fun, friendly game'. Removing points and replacing them with 'eyeballing balance' does not remove either the whining or needing to improve your game. You still get cries of 'that's not fair', 'you only won because of a cheesy list', and 'your list is broken' etc

 jonolikespie wrote:
You can always get the app and pay all of what, $6 for a full army list?

It's great to see AoS go that route and I hope 40k gets something like that soon because as it stood GW was the only model company I could name whose core rules required additional paid rules for each army and would sell those additional rules at more than a starter set for other game systems.

To be fair, I would be totally fine with removing any official balance from 40k just as they did with AoS. 40k is in a terrible, all-time low balance state and nigh unplayable on higher competitive levels. At that point, GW could just as well cave in and turn 40k into a no-effort system too, the game itself would improve, yet the feces-storm would be remarkable.

Hang on I just noticed something.

 Talys wrote:

Nobody should be vilified for wanting to play their army

I absolutely agree with this 100%.

Which is why I find this amusing.

 Talys wrote:

The only way Age of Sigmar works is if the person who brings 50 greatswords goes, "Oh, these guys are way better than your 50 peasants. I'll just take 40 of them away, and give it a whirl. Sound good?"

So all of a sudden 50 greatsword guy is vilified and doesn't get a game for simply wanting to play his army.



Frankly I find this whole no points thing and the people defending it just plain odd. As far as I am concerned the entire point of having rules in a game is to make the whole damn thing fair. You can make all the arguments you want about creativity and how GW weren't able to do that with points anyway but that's what it boils down to for me. AoS doesn't even try to give two people a fair playing field and on that alone is has failed on the conceptual level.

I don't think anyone is claiming that the current rules for AoS are anything resembling a proper game, There are so many holes that need feeling.

But to me that is not the point. I don't for one minute think that GW have done this for the good of the players or to advance the concept of tabletop wargaming. In my opinion they have totally de-prioritised the rules of the game and have prioritised the miniatures and terrain, which in my opinion on the whole are great.

So the question is, what do you do from here? Or rather, is their potential in what we currently have of the AoS rules and warscrolls. In my opinion the answer is yes.

Already there are systems that have been produced to try and address the deficiencies of the game. Yes the gamers shouldn't have to do this but the question remains, can you use your hard built and painted model collection in this game and enjoy yourself?

This in no way absolves GW from not meeting its repsonsibilities but we are where we are. Can something be salvaged that is worthwhile?

I don't think anyone seriously thinks that GW even considered what would be good for the game for the mere fraction of a second.

dragonelf wrote:
I don't think anyone is claiming that the current rules for AoS are anything resembling a proper game, There are so many holes that need feeling.

I am. I'm not sure what you mean by "proper" game, but the rules, as written, are more than enough to play an enjoyable game. It lacks, perhaps, a few extra features that could benefit it as a lifestyle game meant to be enjoyed over decades, but the game is two months old and not even done releasing units for its first faction. What I'm saying is that it's fine for what it is now, and if you want more from it over a longer period of time, you have to factor in that there will be more releases for it in that longer period of time (which may or may not be what you want). Campaign books, more scenery, more units and unit specific rules, more factions, and so on.

(I would not pin all my hopes on any one release though, as some people did for the first campaign book, and instead look globally at how the game is developing with each new release - I think scenery, for example, is proving more important than it initially appears, and at least one battalion scroll includes scenery, indicating that the scenery is part of your army selection)

But to me that is not the point. I don't for one minute think that GW have done this for the good of the players or to advance the concept of tabletop wargaming. In my opinion they have totally de-prioritised the rules of the game and have prioritised the miniatures and terrain, which in my opinion on the whole are great.

The 4 pages of rules are sort of the overview - the grand direction of game. The actual minutiae of gameplay comes from the individual warscrolls. For instance, there is a brief comment on cover in the 4 pages of rules, but the scenery rules for walls and scenery have more detailed rules. There's only one command for generals in the 4 pages, but hero models tend to include additional commands. And so on. The 4 pages are the skeleton, with the warscrolls being the meat.

Already there are systems that have been produced to try and address the deficiencies of the game. Yes the gamers shouldn't have to do this but the question remains, can you use your hard built and painted model collection in this game and enjoy yourself?

Why shouldn't gamers do it? There was this article I read a while ago about the difference between "curative" fans and "transformative" fans. The curative fans consider themselves the curators of canon, and seek to maintain the righteousness and integrity of what they love. Transformative fans tend to take something they love and then use it as the basis for their own creations. They write fan fiction, draw fan art, ship different characters together, roleplay, and so on. Both these types of fans exist within any single fanbase, and in the case of miniature games, that's where you see people who convert their army, use weird color schemes, and yes, build additional rulesets and scenarios to play with.

So whatever you do, players will always contribute the game like that. However, most games, and most game fanbases, have limitations on where and how this transformative aspect can take place. You can do it, just do it over there. And almost without exception, the game's rules must be curated, not transformed. AoS is interesting because while the 4 pages tell you how to play, they put virtually no limit on what you can play. This makes it the perfect playground for transformative fans to contribute to the game because the rules are open enough to allow for that kind of wiggle room without stepping on the rules canon that must be preserved at all cost by curative fans.

As a curative fan, I can understand how relying on that is a bit unsettling. It just feels wrong. So... so... unofficial. But I'm not sure how much of that is just me and how much of it is actually a threat to the game, as I feel it might be. A while ago, I decided to be more open minded about such things, and while the tendencies and mistrust are still there, I am also somewhat curious as to where a community-driven game would go. At the very least, fans can add onto the game without breaking what is there. A point system on top of AoS does not break AoS. They do not have to break the canon to do their transformative thing. Not like Star Trek slash fan fiction.

This in no way absolves GW from not meeting its repsonsibilities but we are where we are. Can something be salvaged that is worthwhile?

I don't think the grand scheme of the game is yet visible to use poorly plebeians. The game is but two months old, still in the midst of its initial release barrage. Even then, it will not present the new vision of various races, like the orks, elves, or dwarves (or whatever they are called now), nor has any FAQ or errata been released to clarify the rules which are, in my opinion, mostly obvious, but not inarguable. There may be other rules coming out as well. So, it's less about salvaging a sinking ship and more like seeing just the tip of a submarine, having no idea what it really looks like under the water.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Why shouldn't gamers do it?

Because you're missing the 3rd type of fan.

People whom upon buying a product* expect it to work.



*I am well aware that the rules are now free, but the 'product' in this case is AoS as a whole, meaning if I am paying money for gaming models, which is what GW models are despite what GW say so long as there are rules attached, I don't expect to have to put in an ounce of work to make the game fun.

AOS feels like I'm in a modern art gallery where people are looking at a canvas covered in one shade of green while people around me say,
"What a bold statement against the duality of mankind!"
"How brave to cover the entire space in one shade of beauty."
"The subtle delicate brushstrokes build up to a crescendo of expression that defies all art that came before!"

Meanwhile I stand there and see green.

 jonolikespie wrote:
*I am well aware that the rules are now free, but the 'product' in this case is AoS as a whole, meaning if I am paying money for gaming models, which is what GW models are despite what GW say so long as there are rules attached, I don't expect to have to put in an ounce of work to make the game fun.

Have you actually played the game? Because the rules do make for a fun time. There's a lot of people who have said as much, in this thread and others, but they are always dismissed by the people who haven't played the game as being wrong, or idiots, or children. The rules, as written, provide for a grand old time as is. It has rules for picking armies at the table, rules for scenery, rules for winning, rules for balancing, rules for playing, and so on. The only change I'd make when playing for the first time is to measure from bases (assuming they all have round bases).

That you think the rules are too simple or don't work, as written, just says to me that you haven't bothered to give the game a real chance. You may ultimately desire more from the game, or wish you were playing something else, but the game is perfectly playable as is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:
AOS feels like I'm in a modern art gallery where people are looking at a canvas covered in one shade of green while people around me say,
"What a bold statement against the duality of mankind!"
"How brave to cover the entire space in one shade of beauty."
"The subtle delicate brushstrokes build up to a crescendo of expression that defies all art that came before!"

Meanwhile I stand there and see green.

So what you are saying is that there are people who appreciate art on a level beyond your comprehension, and that their enjoyment is somehow arrogant because you can't imagine anything beyond the most simple, flat, and boring interpretation?

I know your intention is to say that they are full of gak, but maybe different people can look at the same thing and take different things away from it without either party being specifically wrong. Most of my posts in this this thread haven't been about making you like a green painting, but to explain why I don't just see green. You don't have to like the green painting, and I doubt you ever will, but it is my hope that you'll at least allow for people to hold other points of view without immediately judging them as full of gak.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Have you actually played the game? Because the rules do make for a fun time. There's a lot of people who have said as much, in this thread and others, but they are always dismissed by the people who haven't played the game as being wrong, or idiots, or children

...and 100% of the time, people dismiss any criticism towards AoS by saying the other person has never played it.

AoS as a ruleset is objectively bad. It's more of a collection of loosely connected rules ideas with warscrolls that are terribly balanced, both external and internal. This doesn't devoid it of the possibility to be fun for people, objectivity and subjectivity are two different things.

Subjectively, yes I played a game but did not bother finishing, it felt shallow with superficial dice rolling constantly instead of player made decisions.

Objectively, any game that tells you to put your models on top of someone elses in order to make it into range is asking for damaged models, discouraging scenic basing and poorly thought out.

 Sqorgar wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:
AOS feels like I'm in a modern art gallery where people are looking at a canvas covered in one shade of green while people around me say,
"What a bold statement against the duality of mankind!"
"How brave to cover the entire space in one shade of beauty."
"The subtle delicate brushstrokes build up to a crescendo of expression that defies all art that came before!"

Meanwhile I stand there and see green.

So what you are saying is that there are people who appreciate art on a level beyond your comprehension, and that their enjoyment is somehow arrogant because you can't imagine anything beyond the most simple, flat, and boring interpretation?

I know your intention is to say that they are full of gak, but maybe different people can look at the same thing and take different things away from it without either party being specifically wrong. Most of my posts in this this thread haven't been about making you like a green painting, but to explain why I don't just see green. You don't have to like the green painting, and I doubt you ever will, but it is my hope that you'll at least allow for people to hold other points of view without immediately judging them as full of gak.

As a profesional artist, I can assure you that some art is just crap. A green canvas is pretensions and hollow full of sound and fury and signifies nothing.
I don't think GW intended to make something that changes the face of gaming. I think they just wanted a game for the least amount of effort possible.
What I am calling pretentious is the idea that this game is revolutionary and daring. It's a corporate cop-out made to sell more models.
Again, I don't think AOS is made to be played with much thought involved. That's not a bad thing. That's exactly how I like my video games. To each his own.
But don't pretend for a second that this game is as tactical or strategic as any other game out there.
Admit it for what it is. If one likes it, good on them.
But the criticisms of AOS being simplistic are well founded.

 Sqorgar wrote:

I don't think the grand scheme of the game is yet visible to use poorly plebeians. The game is but two months old, still in the midst of its initial release barrage. Even then, it will not present the new vision of various races, like the orks, elves, or dwarves (or whatever they are called now), nor has any FAQ or errata been released to clarify the rules which are, in my opinion, mostly obvious, but not inarguable. There may be other rules coming out as well. So, it's less about salvaging a sinking ship and more like seeing just the tip of a submarine, having no idea what it really looks like under the water.

Sadly. it doesn't seem to me that there's some grand design for a game, built little by little, out there. For me a game's expansion shouldn't be just new units without the foundation of options to play. Right now I feel that with all that "you're free to do whatever you like" attitude that AoS is showing I doesn't give me much to play with. It sounds like a zen saying or something: "Here young grasshopper, take nothing and you shall learn to play with everything". I like AoS for what it is IMO - an easy game to play your miniatures, with some rules evoking certain visual characteristics of the models and minimum time spent for learning the simple core mechanics. It can manage as an introductory game to the hobby at large and that's how I'm using it. Even a completely new player that I introduced it to kind of complained that there's not that much to do in the game after all. Sure, he liked it, like he would've liked his first girlfriend back in the years, but still...

How come systems like Malifaux and DZC (these I've played and have tracked them since the beginning) can start with a nice book, filled with rules, stories, missions, options etc. and the 250 million pounds, annual turnover (just a number I pulled from my behind) corporation that is GW couldn't do the same? They indeed have bigger shoes to fill than these other companies and they should have the resources to accomplish it, but for now they're just lying on old laurels so to speak.

I realize that one argument for AoS has been that it is intended for/liked by people who don't want to be bothered by complicated rules, but the facts are out there: The AoS (atleast the first, the second I've only seen on video reviews, as I'm rather cautious now) books offer laughable content compared to other companies' books which are much cheaper. Ok, you don't want to give us rules? Fine, fill it with something else that is worthy of a book. Well written stories and fluff could have done the job. Page after page of the same picture of stormcast eternals battling chaos along with photos of stormcast eternals fighting chaos is not what I call good book content though – I call it an overpriced art album. It may be enough for some people, but I've seen better. I realize that books of this nature must be a mix of the two, story and pictures, but these go far too much towards one to the exclusion of the other.

I consider myself a somewhat AoS-pro person (that is I want to support the system), I want the game to grow, become better and succeed, as I think that every good game riches the hobby, but for now they've showed me too little of their big endeavor to push me from just sympathetic to committed. I doubt that I'll see some kind of miracle during the last month given to AoS for the year.

Deadnight wrote:

 Talys wrote:
Deadnight, the greatsword guy doesn't have to bend at all.

At least be consistent talys:

 Talys wrote:

The only way Age of Sigmar works is if the person who brings 50 greatswords goes, "Oh, these guys are way better than your 50 peasants. I'll just take 40 of them away, and give it a whirl. Sound good?"

Ie it only works when greatsword guy bends. In other word, goalposts being moved. Again.

Again, NO. No goalpost moving. They don't have to play. The two people can walk away from a game, and should do so, if they essentially want to play different games.

2b. why do we have to remove? Why does greatswords guy have to bend? Why can't peasant guy? Surely adding stuff to make it equal is just as valid? Again, not the narrative being pushed here. It's all on greatsword guy to bend and enable/accomodate the other guy and having to change, with the other guy having the expectation of how he wants to play being defined as the 'right way' that has to be catered to, and not having to bend or accomodate in any way. But greatsword guy is the one seen as 'selfish'.

Because... the guy with the peasants is there at the table, may never meet the greatsword guy again, and either they play or don't play. It's not what you could have in 2 months from now, it's what you have right now that matters.

If the guy with the peasants NEVER wants to improve his army, and the guy with the greatswords loves and is constantly improving his army, they'll be poor play partners anyhow. This was kind of my point. People who want different things out of the hobby do not make good opponents. It does not make either person a bad person.

Which generally works in well designed point based systems, along with other structural limitations and supports (eg multiple lists, sideboards, various victory conditions etc). The expectation is not that an army is 'optimised', it's that you will have a fair game, in a well designed points system, optimisation is irrelevant because everything's value is costed accordingly. Simply put: you've played far too much 40k.

Or WMH.

If I want to just buy models that I like the aesthetic of, and play that army, this is not possible in WMH. Even within the constraints of what I MUST take, the battle force will NOT be effective, if I don't want to read the unit rules first, and really care more about the models and how my army will look assembled rather than their rules.

one player is still vilified for bringing greatswords, for being 'selfish', and having no interest in a 'fun, friendly game'. Removing points and replacing them with 'eyeballing balance' does not remove either the whining or needing to improve your game. You still get cries of 'that's not fair', 'you only won because of a cheesy list', and 'your list is broken' etc

I've said that nobody should be vilified or called selfish for wanting to play their models. If there is no meeting of the minds, neither player gets a game; that's all. Nobody's a bad person because of it. If Joe says, "I have what I think is an awesome tournament army" and Sam says, "All I have is the starter box models" -- then they should both find different opponents rather than waste their time.

 Talys wrote:

If the guy with the peasants NEVER wants to improve his army, and the guy with the greatswords loves and is constantly improving his army, they'll be poor play partners anyhow. This was kind of my point. People who want different things out of the hobby do not make good opponents. It does not make either person a bad person.

I think this is what I have been trying to say for Decades now.
Some People should just not be playing each other if they both feel the other was is 'Wrong For How They Play'. And No one should be the Bad Guy.
When you become the 'Bad Guy' is when you Force the other guy to play Your Way.

But doesn't that create a problem for place where there is not 100 players, but more like 20. Wouldn't it be better to make a game playable for all, and not just a minority?

 Anpu42 wrote:
I think this is what I have been trying to say for Decades now.
Some People should just not be playing each other if they both feel the other was is 'Wrong For How They Play'. And No one should be the Bad Guy.
When you become the 'Bad Guy' is when you Force the other guy to play Your Way.

I think there's room for both groups, and I think both groups can, should, and will be able to play together in perfect harmony - assuming they are willing to compromise. There's one tournament-style Warmachine player who won't play with me, nor I him, because we want such different things from the game (I like smaller game sizes, while he won't play anything less than 75 points). But we exist in the same club and can discuss the game without problem. We can not compromise in one area, but that doesn't mean we have nothing in common in others.

The problem comes when one group or the other starts to speak for the community as a whole. I know I've been guilty of that (though largely in defense against others doing it). Eventually it comes down to who "owns" the game. With Warmachine and 40k, the tournament gamers have won it, kit and caboodle. You can talk about how you like to play the green one, but your voice is not welcome there. Expect to be told at length why your opinion is wrong, it is bad for the game, you are stupid for having it, and nobody likes you anyway.

With AoS, nobody "owns" the community yet - it's too new, and does thing just differently enough that it can't just assume another game's community - and there is an ongoing battle for it. One type of player doesn't like the game and wants to destroy the community. If they can't have it (or don't want it), it has no right to exist. They want to convince others to abandon the game, largely to appease their own self satisfaction in knowing that they are right and righteous. Walk away? Agree to disagree? NEVER! I am right, dammit! My pain must be acknowledged!

The other type of player wants to play the game without having to fight for the right to enjoy it. They are largely not welcomed in certain places (like Warseer), and have sought to start their own communities away from the established ones, like the reddit and facebook groups. They are starting new podcasts, creating new blogs, and beginning anew because there's been no support elsewhere. Over time, no doubt, a new community will be built, and I'm sure it will continue to be treated like the slow kid in the helmet by 40k fans, by which I mean that the animosity will be mutual and the communities exclusive.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
I think this is what I have been trying to say for Decades now.
Some People should just not be playing each other if they both feel the other was is 'Wrong For How They Play'. And No one should be the Bad Guy.
When you become the 'Bad Guy' is when you Force the other guy to play Your Way.

I think there's room for both groups, and I think both groups can, should, and will be able to play together in perfect harmony - assuming they are willing to compromise. There's one tournament-style Warmachine player who won't play with me, nor I him, because we want such different things from the game (I like smaller game sizes, while he won't play anything less than 75 points). But we exist in the same club and can discuss the game without problem. We can not compromise in one area, but that doesn't mean we have nothing in common in others.

The problem comes when one group or the other starts to speak for the community as a whole. I know I've been guilty of that (though largely in defense against others doing it). Eventually it comes down to who "owns" the game. With Warmachine and 40k, the tournament gamers have won it, kit and caboodle. You can talk about how you like to play the green one, but your voice is not welcome there. Expect to be told at length why your opinion is wrong, it is bad for the game, you are stupid for having it, and nobody likes you anyway.

With AoS, nobody "owns" the community yet - it's too new, and does thing just differently enough that it can't just assume another game's community - and there is an ongoing battle for it. One type of player doesn't like the game and wants to destroy the community. If they can't have it (or don't want it), it has no right to exist. They want to convince others to abandon the game, largely to appease their own self satisfaction in knowing that they are right and righteous. Walk away? Agree to disagree? NEVER! I am right, dammit! My pain must be acknowledged!

The other type of player wants to play the game without having to fight for the right to enjoy it. They are largely not welcomed in certain places (like Warseer), and have sought to start their own communities away from the established ones, like the reddit and facebook groups. They are starting new podcasts, creating new blogs, and beginning anew because there's been no support elsewhere. Over time, no doubt, a new community will be built, and I'm sure it will continue to be treated like the slow kid in the helmet by 40k fans, by which I mean that the animosity will be mutual and the communities exclusive.

I was with you with the part that says there's room for both parties in a game. Your example of Warmachine was exactly how I feel. I'm a casual guy, but I play competitive people all the time without a problem at all.
But then you launched into this binary "competitives are like this and they're bad." AOS players are like this and they're good!
I don't believe in a binary world. I'm a very casual player, but I have streaks of compettitivness in me, as I'm sure most people do to varying degrees.
Villainising one group is counterproductive to your said goal of bringing both groups together.

Makumba wrote:But doesn't that create a problem for place where there is not 100 players, but more like 20. Wouldn't it be better to make a game playable for all, and not just a minority?

While I think that you can make a game playable for all, I don't think that all people can enjoy playing the same game with each other, so it doesn't really matter even if they're playing the same title. The people that want to play the game a different way and splinter off, if they prefer another title that's better for them, what does it matter?

If there's 20 people, and 5 of them aren't happy, that means, if a second game makes 15 people happy with one, and 5 more happy with another... there's a good chance more people will jump in and join the other 5 -- so maybe after some time, you'll have 25 people in the area, with 15 in one game and 10 in the other. And then you might find that a couple in the other group change their preferences, turning it into 17 and 8.

In the same way, X-Wing is *totally* not for me, and were it not to exist, perhaps more people would play the games I like. But I'm glad X-Wing exists and makes its playerbase happy.

MWHistorian wrote:But then you launched into this binary "competitives are like this and they're bad." AOS players are like this and they're good!
I don't believe in a binary world. I'm a very casual player, but I have streaks of compettitivness in me, as I'm sure most people do to varying degrees.
Villainising one group is counterproductive to your said goal of bringing both groups together.

I think you see some of this because quite often, in games like WMH and 40k, the local public game scene is unwelcoming to players who have no interest in improving the effectiveness of their army. They're called things like "Fluff Bunnies" and are derided as "not serious gamers". When, actually, they're just looking for a different sort of game. I've seen it happen in my local scene before.

I totally agree with you that we don't live in a binary world. The solution, for me, is to play the game I like in a private setting with people that like playing it approximately the same way as me -- the needle somewhere in between in terms of competitiveness, nice models being important, the fluff being not really important except that armies should generally make sense and have a raison d'etre, and the dial cranked all the way up in terms of planning interesting scenarios rather than just "bring your army and bash it out".

CoreCommander wrote:
Sadly. it doesn't seem to me that there's some grand design for a game, built little by little, out there.

I think we've seen the grand design. I just don't think it is fully fleshed out yet. We know what the game is and where it is going, but the lack of details prevent us from having an accurate prediction of what the game will look like a year from now.

Right now I feel that with all that "you're free to do whatever you like" attitude that AoS is showing I doesn't give me much to play with.

Being able to do more means that you can do less? So it is a lack of direction that you object to? What can GW do to help you? Points?

They indeed have bigger shoes to fill than these other companies and they should have the resources to accomplish it, but for now they're just lying on old laurels so to speak.

I'm mostly convinced that the success of a miniatures game is not based on the quality of the game itself, but on the size of the company producing it. The majority of the effort goes into supporting the hobby and community aspects, so while a smaller company may produce good rules and nice models, they are still relying on the support network of communities built by the big boys. They are reading painting tutorials written for other games. They are using paints made for other games. They are using subforums of other communities. They are using news sources built around other games. GW, and to an extent PP, are the only companies that have complete vertical integration.

So yeah, I think GW is relying on old laurels - laurels they've spent 30 years building up from nothing. The framework they've created for WFB and 40k makes the introduction of new miniature games trivial. I think the problem is that they aren't using it very well. Because White Dwarf has become weekly, and basically functions as advertisements for the current week's models, they don't bother to use the magazine to promote the hobby at large. GW is such a tight lipped company that you'd have an easir time extracting their teeth than information about releases even two weeks out. They could easily get out there and put AoS into context, but aren't. And I'm honestly not sure if it is because they want the players to figure out what they want the game to be, or if they've just grown so paranoid and shut in that they are afraid of saying anything at all anymore.

I realize that one argument for AoS has been that it is intended for/liked by people who don't want to be bothered by complicated rules, but the facts are out there: The AoS (atleast the first, the second I've only seen on video reviews, as I'm rather cautious now) books offer laughable content compared to other companies' books which are much cheaper. Ok, you don't want to give us rules? Fine, fill it with something else that is worthy of a book. Well written stories and fluff could have done the job. Page after page of the same picture of stormcast eternals battling chaos along with photos of stormcast eternals fighting chaos is not what I call good book content though – I call it an overpriced art album. It may be enough for some people, but I've seen better. I realize that books of this nature must be a mix of the two, story and pictures, but these go far too much towards one to the exclusion of the other.

I don't think you'll find many people defending GW's decision to produce super expensive hardback books that simply repeat information that is included in their super expensive magazines and novels. I, personally, see these books as a documentation of the game - a summary as it grows and changes over time - in the same way that the Warmachine books are, given that the units stats are included with the models otherwise. Even then, the books are too frequent and too expensive.

I doubt that I'll see some kind of miracle during the last month given to AoS for the year.

I doubt that too. If you don't find the Stormcasts or Khorne that interesting, it probably won't do much for you any time soon. I think once they come back to AoS, it might be interesting. I'm interested to see how the new factions look, and I'm curious to see if they keep up with the scenery. When they release the new fyreslayer dwarves, will they get a giant modular castle too? Will there be new realm of battle boards created for the other 8 realms? Will they continue to release new units for the Stormcasts as a slow drip, rather than dedicating a few months here and there to complete factions?

I think right now, the story is just big gold dudes versus big, but not as big angry violent dudes, and that's kind of limited. But once the other realms and races are explored, there will be more possibilities for fluff, models, scenery, novels, and whatever. I don't think the core of the game will change, but it will be broader in terms of what it can do, and I think that will be pretty interesting. It's a game of inches.

But no, in the immediate month ahead, I wouldn't expect many miracles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:

I was with you with the part that says there's room for both parties in a game. Your example of Warmachine was exactly how I feel. I'm a casual guy, but I play competitive people all the time without a problem at all.
But then you launched into this binary "competitives are like this and they're bad." AOS players are like this and they're good!
I don't believe in a binary world. I'm a very casual player, but I have streaks of compettitivness in me, as I'm sure most people do to varying degrees.
Villainising one group is counterproductive to your said goal of bringing both groups together.

There is a very distinct Us vs Them feeling going on, but you are right. It definitely feels like there is a war going on for the soul of the community - not just here, but also other GW forums - and I've definitely seen a fair few people leave those communities to start there own. However, I may not be completely right in blaming the tournament players for this. A large number of complaints against AoS is the lack of tournament-style accouterments, like points or explicit balancing structures. But it may not strictly be tournament gamers making these complaints.

Some definitely are, but I'm increasingly getting the impression that some are just from people who don't know what to do because the game doesn't tell them. What if someone shows up with an absurdly unfair army to play against? Maybe they aren't asking because they plan on fielding that army, but simply because they wouldn't know what to do if they had to play against it. Maybe the reason why AoS perplexes them so is because they aren't tournament gamers, so there isn't that easy answer of "AoS wasn't made for you". Well, if they aren't tournament gamers and it wasn't made for them, who was it made for? Not sure I have those answers.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Right now I feel that with all that "you're free to do whatever you like" attitude that AoS is showing I doesn't give me much to play with.

Being able to do more means that you can do less? So it is a lack of direction that you object to? What can GW do to help you? Points?

Well, no. To tell the truth I don't need points that much (I love Apocalypse 40k and honestly think for myself that it is the 40k experience that every gamer should have), but I'm lazy and unimaginative in terms of various ways to play the game (as I've said in the other "big" thread). While I appreciate the plethora of unit abilities that is out there I feel the game is lacking in its mission structure. I know that there are scenarios, I know that there are particular "Realms" rules etc., but they're still not enough for me. I haven't played Malifaux that much, but the secret objectives are an example of the mission structure I expect to see in a game. Combined with the different objectives and deployments these give me the out of the box options I require. Age of Sigmar is doing this already, but it still has a long way to go. Variety is what I want and I feel it is not delivered in enough quantity for now. 40k for example isn't the paragon of innovative missions, but beside the banal "stay near that point" and "go over there" there are the three secondary objectives, more rules for global effects on the battlefield etc. Btw if you can, take a look at the latest Apocalypse book. It is very much in tone with the AoS "no points everything is allowed" mantra, but has much more beef to it. The additional rules for commanders, stratagems, a whole campaign, disaster rules are all presented in one way or another in the AoS base rulebook, but they're nowhere near the stuff and the overall layout in Apocalypse.

Sqorgar wrote:So yeah, I think GW is relying on old laurels - laurels they've spent 30 years building up from nothing.

Exactly because they've been building their laurels for the past 30 years I've come to expect better things from them. When the quality of their new printed product is well below what I'm used to, I as a selfish customer, not remembering past good purchases from the company, begin to grumble. And while we're on the topic of White Dwarf - you're reaching out and sticking a finger in a wound that is deeper than you imagine ( I remember you stating in one of your posts that you're just entering GW's games)

As I said, I'm still willing to wait on while GW piles up content. If they pull it off better than how they're doing it now - great. From what I've seen till now I'm not impressed - my opinion is that the whole execution is pretty average and not befitting the company that everybody compares everything with (in a good or bad manner).

Deadnight wrote:

Ie it only works when greatsword guy bends. In other word, goalposts being moved. Again.

But why? Why do you seem to be so stuck with that idea? It's all situational, for the love of God!

If both players come to the store with only 50 miniatures of their choice then yes, it's obvious that the one with stronger units should field fewer models, that's pretty much logical. And, as I said earlier, it doesn't matter if he fields 50 or 30 greatswords, he still fields them! Now if both players go to the store with bigger parts of their collections then it's obvious that it's even better if the one with peasants fields 80-100 of them instead, because he can. It's not always the greatswords guy that has to adapt, it's situational, can't you see that? Also your point is silly, because just the same way one player can come with 1500 points of models and the other with 1000 and if the latter can't bump up his force to 1500, the other one has to reduce, that's really the most basic law of any interaction. Unless you want them to play an uneven match. So let's say this clearly:

If force A > force B, then force B should grow in size to match force A.

If force B < force A but it can't be expanded, then force A has to be cut down for the match to be fair OR both players come up with a scenario to counter the disproportion.

Basic logic. And as I said earlier, what if the player A comes with tanks, griffons and bajillion other models? Is it selfish to ask him to back down because he brought 3 times more models that are 10 times stronger? How dare the regular player expect to be allowed to fight something more even! Instead of agreeing on points level you just agree on power level. Bringing 3000pts against 1000pts is just like bringing 30 bloodthirsters against 30 greatswords, only difference is that you sort it out during preparation of the game rather than back home while making the list. AoS rules say explicitly that you build your force on the go before each match.

CoreCommander wrote:

Well, no. To tell the truth I don't need points that much (I love Apocalypse 40k and honestly think for myself that it is the 40k experience that every gamer should have), but I'm lazy and unimaginative in terms of various ways to play the game (as I've said in the other "big" thread). While I appreciate the plethora of unit abilities that is out there I feel the game is lacking in its mission structure. I know that there are scenarios, I know that there are particular "Realms" rules etc., but they're still not enough for me. I haven't played Malifaux that much, but the secret objectives are an example of the mission structure I expect to see in a game. Combined with the different objectives and deployments these give me the out of the box options I require. Age of Sigmar is doing this already, but it still has a long way to go. Variety is what I want and I feel it is not delivered in enough quantity for now. 40k for example isn't the paragon of innovative missions, but beside the banal "stay near that point" and "go over there" there are the three secondary objectives, more rules for global effects on the battlefield etc. Btw if you can, take a look at the latest Apocalypse book. It is very much in tone with the AoS "no points everything is allowed" mantra, but has much more beef to it. The additional rules for commanders, stratagems, a whole campaign, disaster rules are all presented in one way or another in the AoS base rulebook, but they're nowhere near the stuff and the overall layout in Apocalypse.

So what you want are a variety of options to give you the ability to customize your game? Or to have variety in the kind of games you can play? Or maybe just more things to consider, with complex relationships, that give your brain a workout when planning strategy?

I'm curious what you think of the soon to be released dreadfort? (Other than how expensive it is). There are 4 different modules to it, each with their own sets of rules. It seems like assaulting it (or defending it) would present a very different gaming experience than normal. Combined with the other 4 pieces of scenery, the random scenery effects, the realm rules, battalion warscrolls, the triumph table, and scenarios, it seems like you could have dozens of different effects on the field completely separate from whatever rules the units themselves bring. A lot of those effects are positional (units near this terrain gain this effect) or passive (rules always in effect), but I guess there isn't a lot there otherwise. I mean, scenarios have the power to affect deployment and potential goals, but there's only been about 20 scenarios released so far and they aren't all winners.

And while we're on the topic of White Dwarf - you're reaching out and sticking a finger in a wound that is deeper than you imagine ( I remember you stating in one of your posts that you're just entering GW's games)

Yeah, I'm new to GW games, but I used to buy White Dwarfs back in the day due to the painting tips and fancy pictures. I picked up one recently with Age of Sigmar and was surprised to see how small they were (practically pamphlets), and that they were now weekly. The content was okay, I guess (still great pictures of models and painting tips), but it was all focused around the current releases that week. I can easily see how people would be less than thrilled at the new format.

As I said, I'm still willing to wait on while GW piles up content. If they pull it off better than how they're doing it now - great. From what I've seen till now I'm not impressed - my opinion is that the whole execution is pretty average and not befitting the company that everybody compares everything with (in a good or bad manner).

Personally, I feel like AoS is doing pretty good. Maybe it is because I'm used to other mini games, none of which started with any releases outside of starter boxes. I think I got into Warmachine right at the beginning (before the beginning, actually), it was some time before there was anything to expand the initial battlegroups with. Having two months of weekly releases is pretty amazing to me, even though they are largely fancier versions of the starter set (so I haven't bought any). And the books are too expensive and too frequent. But at least there's something instead of just a starter set and dead air for months. Even now Warmachine only releases one or two models per faction every month or two.

 Klerych wrote:
If force A > force B, then force B should grow in size to match force A.

If force B < force A but it can't be expanded, then force A has to be cut down for the match to be fair OR both players come up with a scenario to counter the disproportion.

Basic logic. And as I said earlier, what if the player A comes with tanks, griffons and bajillion other models? Is it selfish to ask him to back down because he brought 3 times more models that are 10 times stronger? How dare the regular player expect to be allowed to fight something more even! Instead of agreeing on points level you just agree on power level. Bringing 3000pts against 1000pts is just like bringing 30 bloodthirsters against 30 greatswords, only difference is that you sort it out during preparation of the game rather than back home while making the list. AoS rules say explicitly that you build your force on the go before each match.

I mean, this is pretty much what it boils down to. I wouldn't really describe it as "selfish", one way or the other though. If player A wants to play with 30 bloodthirsters on a 12' table with the full Chaos Dreadhold, and player B just owns a starter set, player B should find a new opponent. Trying to make it work is *hopeless*.

If Player A is stuck on what he wants to play, he's not being selfish; he's just being unrealistic in finding anyone to play with This is hyperbole,. of course, as I don't think anyone actually owns 30 bloodthirsters (I'm waiting for someone to post in a picture so that I eat my words). In real life, what happens is Player A just has too superior a force for B, and for whatever reasons, they just won't be able to have a fun game together. No shame in that, better to identify it than to waste one or both peoples' time.

Where the whole points thing comes along is when A and B have the same number of points but A is superior to B in a significant way, and A doesn't want to adjust his battle force, even though both can recognize it. This is something I've seen in nearly every wargame I've ever come across where list-building and points are involved, and generally, the more models the game allows and the more special rules (less bland, whatever you want to call it) the more asymmetry is possible.

If GW did their job in the first place A and B would be equally matched.


Seriously, this is a uniquely GW problem. Absolute perfect balance is never going to be a reachable goal but I can't name another tabletop wargame on the market right now where there is a gulf between casual and competitive players because balance is so bad.

As has already been stated above, a casual warmachine player does not encounter the same problems a casual GW player does when playing a tournament gamer.

Meanwhile, while playing Kings of War I don't have to worry if what I bring is too overpowered against my enemy, and vice versa.

This is really a problem unique to GW, and people are treating AoS like it's the Emperor's new clothes. I'm not saying it can't be fun but don't pretend that having no points is a) innovative b) the most bestest thing ever and c) will weed TFG players out.