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.

Any game can be made to work and fun with enough tweaking and house ruling. The fact that AOS requires extensive tweaking makes it a bad game. I originally come from boardgaming where a game is considered good if the rules are balanced, tight, thematic, and flows smoothly out of the box. Aos fits none of these criteria. Imagine what rating AOS would get on Boardgamegeek.com. Maybe a 4.0... or less?

Of course it's fun. We all knew it would be. The point is I'm bitter and angry.

Ken52682 wrote:
Imagine what rating AOS would get on Boardgamegeek.com. Maybe a 4.0... or less?

It has a 5.28, with 37 ratings less than 3 and 38 ratings of 8+ out of 91 total. You can read the ratings comments here.

Any game can be fun if there are players who accept and enjoy the premise of the game.

AoS is a simple, skirmish level fantasy game that does not need extensive tweaking if you are happy to play it out of the box, without particular regard to fairness, especially if you ignore or preferably don't even notice grey areas like summoning and the other things that have provoked a lot of YMDC debate.

A lot of newcomers will be very happy playing it that way. A good excuse to move some figures around and roll a lot of dice. It doesn't require a lot of learning, thinking and time to play, but there is the absolute core of a wargame in the rules (table set-up, deployment, moving, fighting, victory conditions.)

It's simple and not satisfying if you are looking for something more in-depth but there is a workable game in it.

Boardgamegeek is giving AoS a rating of 5.2 out of 10 at the time of writing.

Ken52682 wrote:
Any game can be made to work and fun with enough tweaking and house ruling. The fact that AOS requires extensive tweaking makes it a bad game. I originally come from boardgaming where a game is considered good if the rules are balanced, tight, thematic, and flows smoothly out of the box. Aos fits none of these criteria. Imagine what rating AOS would get on Boardgamegeek.com. Maybe a 4.0... or less?

did the tournament in question require "extensive" tweaking and what do you define extensive... A lot of people claim AoS needs a lot of tweaking but in reality most of the tweaking is very benign.

IIRC, the Boardgamegeek score was very polarized, with people either ranking it extremely low or extremely high.

That actually bodes well for AoS, as everyone thinking the game is a 7/10 (a mediocre game) would be its death knell, since everyone probably ALSO has a game that they rank higher than that. AoS it needs a core of people who think that it's a GREAT game (8-10) and continue to play it and buy stuff for it.

As far as the game's future is concerned, all the people who don't love it enough to continue investing in it can rank it as a 1.

But really, that goes for any game. You'd rather have 20 people rank it 10 and 80 people rank it 1 for an average score of 2.8, than 100 people rank it 7 for an average score of 7, because in the first case, you'll get 20 long term players, and in the second you'll get zero.

 Talys wrote:
IIRC, the Boardgamegeek score was very polarized, with people either ranking it extremely low or extremely high.

That actually bodes well for AoS, as everyone thinking the game is a 7/10 (a mediocre game) would be its death knell, since everyone probably ALSO has a game that they rank higher than that. AoS it needs a core of people who think that it's a GREAT game (8-10) and continue to play it and buy stuff for it.

As far as the game's future is concerned, all the people who don't love it enough to continue investing in it can rank it as a 1.

But really, that goes for any game. You'd rather have 20 people rank it 10 and 80 people rank it 1 for an average score of 2.8, than 100 people rank it 7 for an average score of 7, because in the first case, you'll get 20 long term players, and in the second you'll get zero.

That is a very good point. Don't think I have ever seen a game get a more varied/polarized reception.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Talys wrote:
IIRC, the Boardgamegeek score was very polarized, with people either ranking it extremely low or extremely high.

That actually bodes well for AoS, as everyone thinking the game is a 7/10 (a mediocre game) would be its death knell, since everyone probably ALSO has a game that they rank higher than that. AoS it needs a core of people who think that it's a GREAT game (8-10) and continue to play it and buy stuff for it.

As far as the game's future is concerned, all the people who don't love it enough to continue investing in it can rank it as a 1.

But really, that goes for any game. You'd rather have 20 people rank it 10 and 80 people rank it 1 for an average score of 2.8, than 100 people rank it 7 for an average score of 7, because in the first case, you'll get 20 long term players, and in the second you'll get zero.

That is a very good point. Don't think I have ever seen a game get a more varied/polarized reception.

I have never even been on boardgamegeek before :0 first time hearing about it... But I also think a lot of the negatives about AoS come from disgruntled ye olde hammer players... Which is understandable but when you are blinded with grief/anger I do not expect an unbiased opinions...

Nice to hear that 'Clash' was a success.

What turned me off from playing a game initially was the shock-factor of the insulting 'hold your mini up to your ear and listen to him' rules.

This infantalised a setting and ruleset that many took incredibly seriously for a long time.

But I am warming to it more and coming to realise how accessible it is for new gamers.

If you're playing AOS for a balanced, competitive game, that's like going to a Bieber concert and expecting a mosh pit.
I'm not saying AOS is bad. (I personally don't like it at all, but that's my opinion.) I'm just saying that certain games lend themselves better to certain styles of play. If one wanted an actually competitive game, they should play one and not try to fit a square peg into a round hole and pretend it's a perfect fit.

 MWHistorian wrote:
If you're playing AOS for a balanced, competitive game, that's like going to a Bieber concert and expecting a mosh pit.
I'm not saying AOS is bad. (I personally don't like it at all, but that's my opinion.) I'm just saying that certain games lend themselves better to certain styles of play. If one wanted an actually competitive game, they should play one and not try to fit a square peg into a round hole and pretend it's a perfect fit.

These people went to a Bieber concert and they had a mosh pit and they all had fun.

Well, it is, kind of, a situation where AoS became competitive and, to be honest, that's how I imagined GW's policy on competitive play for AoS - give bare-bones rules, maybe add some more later on (even print another 4 page "expansion" to them) and have the stores and groups come up with their own comps for their events/play. Kinda like saying "people always houserule our stuff, so why not let them do it from the ground and just give them a core set of rules to work with". Not saying that this is good or bad, or using it as justification for any GW's action, but I sometimes feel like that's what they had in mind while developing AoS.

Notice that pretty much every single unit in those army compendia is properly designed, the rules for them fit them perfectly and give you the feel of that unit very well (I even believe that better than some 8th ed books did) and they even came up with cool, thematic formations for all the armies. I don't think you can nitpick about too much when it comes to the warscrolls, it's just the controversial core rules that make people go nuts and I feel like it's not just "a stupid thing for GW to do" but a carefully planned move on their side that they had their own reasons to make.

 bitethythumb wrote:

Ken52682 wrote:
Any game can be made to work and fun with enough tweaking and house ruling. The fact that AOS requires extensive tweaking makes it a bad game. I originally come from boardgaming where a game is considered good if the rules are balanced, tight, thematic, and flows smoothly out of the box. Aos fits none of these criteria. Imagine what rating AOS would get on Boardgamegeek.com. Maybe a 4.0... or less?

did the tournament in question require "extensive" tweaking and what do you define extensive... A lot of people claim AoS needs a lot of tweaking but in reality most of the tweaking is very benign.

Well, just the tweaks to the rules pamphlet are the same length as the rules pamphlet. I think most people would call that extensive. In addition there is 18 pages worth of a scratch build point system.

Furthermore, the tweaks outright remove a lot of the things that are unique to AoS, like measuring from the model, unrestricted summoning, and pantomime.

 Klerych wrote:
I don't think you can nitpick about too much when it comes to the warscrolls, it's just the controversial core rules that make people go nuts and I feel like it's not just "a stupid thing for GW to do" but a carefully planned move on their side that they had their own reasons to make.

In a very high number of cases, rules one would think would be standardised aren't. For example, there were (at my last counting) more than twenty variations of shields, with more than fifty different names. Similarly, standard bearers, musicians, and paired weapons don't have standardised rules.
Given that this increases the bar of entry, this is rather baffling to me.

I had a look at the NOVA rules pack. Were similar tweaks to the core rules used in this tournament? I'm very curious about one thing - what does players and organizers find so insulting about shooting in and out of combat? Has it really been so bad in people's games that they decided to nerf it or is it just a carry over from oldhammer? Is it a firm belief that units once in close combat shouldn't be able to shoot because it is more realistic or is it a continuation of a tradtion as many of the most popular games so far has imposed some kind of serious disadvantage on it? Is it some self imposed restriction that shooty units, once reached with another unit in melee, should lose half of their abilities (I know that they can just run off and continue shooting but still...) ?
My 2 armies are mostly devoid from shooting units so I can't claim to have much experience with them, but there are some and it never bothered me.

P.S. I had a look at the clash of swords pack aswell and it appears shooting was not touched. Were any complains about it being overpowered at the tournament?

The core rules give some support to the idea that missile weapons are to be used in the shooting phase only, through the ambiguity of the statement made on the subject, which says that missile weapons are used in the shooting phase and melee weapons in the attack phase.

 CoreCommander wrote:
I'm very curious about one thing - what does players and organizers find so insulting about shooting in and out of combat?

I believe the thought is that shooting is too powerful if there is no way to hard counter it.

I think there are balancing mechanisms in the game already though. For instance, you can only shoot in the shooting phase, while you can perform melee attacks in both your and your opponent's combat phase - so melee combat is twice per round and shooting is only once. If you charge a shooty unit, you'll be able to damage them much quicker than they can damage you, unless they retreat, which loses them the ability to shoot for an entire round, at least. It seems most shooty units have pretty weak missile attacks, hitting or wounding on 4s or 5 and doing 1 damage with no rend.

Units can also charge up to 12", plus whatever they moved that turn, which can be enough to close the gap on Judicators with 12" crossbow ranges. On a table with a lot of terrain, having a unit on or within terrain gives them a +1 to save (unless they made a charge that turn), and terrain blocks line or sight much better than other figures do. So the advantage of range can be countered using smart maneuvering.

 CoreCommander wrote:
I'm very curious about one thing - what does players and organizers find so insulting about shooting in and out of combat? Has it really been so bad in people's games that they decided to nerf it or is it just a carry over from oldhammer? Is it a firm belief that units once in close combat shouldn't be able to shoot because it is more realistic or is it a continuation of a tradtion as many of the most popular games so far has imposed some kind of serious disadvantage on it?

I think you will struggle to find another game that lets models shoot into and out of combat without any sort of penalty. It's just not very narrative when Model A is being mauled by Model B, but still has no trouble firing his bow at Model C over yonder hill. It would be okay if there was a hefty penalty to hit associated with it, such that only highly skilled archers could pull it off, and not just any random Orc.

Also, my Wolf Riders geared for shooting do more damage on the charge than my Wolf Riders geared for combat. How narrative is that?

Avian wrote:

I think you will struggle to find another game that lets models shoot into and out of combat without any sort of penalty. It's just not very narrative when Model A is being mauled by Model B, but still has no trouble firing his bow at Model C over yonder hill. It would be okay if there was a hefty penalty to hit associated with it, such that only highly skilled archers could pull it off, and not just any random Orc.

Yes, they can shoot out of combat, but not often. In a worst case scenario, with back to back turns for the opponent, there could be three melee combat phases between shooting phases. So ahead and shoot that guy over yonder, your unit will not make it to the next shooting phase because they ignored their immediate threat.

As for shooting into combat, I don't have a problem with that either. Because of the unit cohesion rules (units must be with 1" of each other, leaving no room for other units to move between), mixed with pile ins, the melee scuffles are less likely to be giant masses of indistinguishable bodies and more like clumps of similar models. If it still bothers you so much, rather than removing the rule altogether, just house rule it that units in melee count as in cover (+1 to saves when in or on terrain features) - but you'd have to define what "in melee" means, as being up to 3" away doesn't seem like it should get cover.

Avian wrote:

Also, my Wolf Riders geared for shooting do more damage on the charge than my Wolf Riders geared for combat. How narrative is that?

They are shooting as they go in.

Been thinking about this firing into/within combat thing, and had an idea.

I wonder if it is assumed that most combats are not going to take too many turns. If a combat takes just a turn or two, they the shooting can be explained by shooting as the enemy moves in (stand and fire), models in the rear ranks using their missile weapons before diving in, other units picking stragglers from the rear of the enemy, etc.

If you think of it with just a dash of abstraction rather than literally, it kinda works...

Well, I'm more into narrative games than abstract ones. That's why I don't like it.

Avian wrote:
Well, I'm more into narrative games than abstract ones. That's why I don't like it.

But you make your own narrative, if that is what you are looking for - such as the Goblin Wolf Riders shooting as they charge in. I am sure we can find a film or two where something very similar happens.

Avian wrote:

 CoreCommander wrote:
I'm very curious about one thing - what does players and organizers find so insulting about shooting in and out of combat? Has it really been so bad in people's games that they decided to nerf it or is it just a carry over from oldhammer? Is it a firm belief that units once in close combat shouldn't be able to shoot because it is more realistic or is it a continuation of a tradtion as many of the most popular games so far has imposed some kind of serious disadvantage on it?

I think you will struggle to find another game that lets models shoot into and out of combat without any sort of penalty. It's just not very narrative when Model A is being mauled by Model B, but still has no trouble firing his bow at Model C over yonder hill. It would be okay if there was a hefty penalty to hit associated with it, such that only highly skilled archers could pull it off, and not just any random Orc.

Also, my Wolf Riders geared for shooting do more damage on the charge than my Wolf Riders geared for combat. How narrative is that?

DBA does it, so does Marechal de l'Empire by Polemos, and the Cry Havoc rules.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The core rules give some support to the idea that missile weapons are to be used in the shooting phase only, through the ambiguity of the statement made on the subject, which says that missile weapons are used in the shooting phase and melee weapons in the attack phase.

Frankly I read it the exact same way when I first glanced over the rules. It is wishful thinking though as the shooting phase is still there to use the model's shooting weapons. I can't see the ambiguity, but I understand the need to.

 Sqorgar wrote:

I think there are balancing mechanisms in the game already though. For instance, you can only shoot in the shooting phase, while you can perform melee attacks in both your and your opponent's combat phase - so melee combat is twice per round and shooting is only once. If you charge a shooty unit, you'll be able to damage them much quicker than they can damage you, unless they retreat, which loses them the ability to shoot for an entire round, at least. It seems most shooty units have pretty weak missile attacks, hitting or wounding on 4s or 5 and doing 1 damage with no rend.

These I find to be true most of the time and I think it contributes to the evening out of damage output over time, but I wanted to see if other players will share their experience of overpowered shooting that can't be reasonably dealt with. There are units that indeed offer powerful shooting. The example that comes at once is Judicators with their 24" bows. But then there's this...

 Sqorgar wrote:

Units can also charge up to 12", plus whatever they moved that turn, which can be enough to close the gap on Judicators with 12" crossbow ranges. On a table with a lot of terrain, having a unit on or within terrain gives them a +1 to save (unless they made a charge that turn), and terrain blocks line or sight much better than other figures do. So the advantage of range can be countered using smart maneuvering.

I have daemonettes that move 14", run 2d6" (+1 if near hero) and can also make a charge after their run for an additional 2d6+1". All these total about 30". Judicators can't escape this unit on their own. This is not the only example. My screamers can manage an aprroximate 23" charge and they fly bypassing unit screening. AoS has plenty of fast units.

These factors were already obvious (atleast to me), but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt as I am, sadly, limited by my two armies so I was asking players for in game feedback.

Avian wrote:

I think you will struggle to find another game that lets models shoot into and out of combat without any sort of penalty. It's just not very narrative when Model A is being mauled by Model B, but still has no trouble firing his bow at Model C over yonder hill. It would be okay if there was a hefty penalty to hit associated with it, such that only highly skilled archers could pull it off, and not just any random Orc.

Also, my Wolf Riders geared for shooting do more damage on the charge than my Wolf Riders geared for combat. How narrative is that?

I think that the fact, that there aren't much games that do that, doesn't necessarily speak ill for AoS. Is there a problem mechanically? I mean, is it so overpowered that it turns out a bad choice? I for one think not, but I'm still waiting for player feedback. Your other point is valid though so I'm checking one for "battle realism/narrative" in my notebook.

Your wolf riders will do almost the same damage on the 1st turn charge and the subsequent enemy phase per model. But the spears have 2" range so more models will be able to fight. I'd say this makes them more suited to CC than bows & slashas.


I have my own little theory about why there is such a liberal attitude to shooting in the rules. I think it is there simply to allow the shooty units, which you bought and brought to shoot stuff down it, to do their thing for the whole duration of the game. I think that the designers imagined it will be more fun that way than having it shoot for 2 turns and than die slowly for another 2. I think it will still die all the same, but you'll be rolling dice and using the bows 'n stuff.

MongooseMatt wrote:

Avian wrote:

Also, my Wolf Riders geared for shooting do more damage on the charge than my Wolf Riders geared for combat. How narrative is that?

They are shooting as they go in.

Been thinking about this firing into/within combat thing, and had an idea.

I wonder if it is assumed that most combats are not going to take too many turns. If a combat takes just a turn or two, they the shooting can be explained by shooting as the enemy moves in (stand and fire), models in the rear ranks using their missile weapons before diving in, other units picking stragglers from the rear of the enemy, etc.

If you think of it with just a dash of abstraction rather than literally, it kinda works...

Actually you're closer to truth than you would think - in medieval Poland, when the country was actually a powerful kingdom there was a tactic where there was a wedge of knights with long lances and between/behind them there were hundreds of their henchmen/retinue members wielding crossbows. When the whole formation charged on their horses, when the piper gave the signal they all launched hundreds of bolts (per one knight there were at least two, three and sometimes five henchmen they were "covering" with the hollow wedge) above their heads and if there were 100 knights we're looking at a salvo of 300-500 crossbow bolts launched during the charge. I of course forgot the name of the formation, although it could've been purely polish idea anyway, but the final effect was that charged enemy was distracted and thrown into disarray with all those bolts flying (and remember that velocity of the charging horse also added to the velocity of the bolt, which turned them into nigh-unstoppable force - now imagine 300 of those) so the lance-wielding frontal charge was even more effective and, frankly, the guys in the back of the cavalry unit rarely have seen any real combat - cavalry charges were all about jamming your lance into the enemies impaling 3-6 men (there were cases of that) and then disengaging to grab another set of lances and charge again. You never got dragged into combat and stood there, because a horse knight standing still in combat is a dead knight - the horses were -very- rarely armoured, so it was easy to kill it/make it fall and then a knight had a big problem. Yes, he could've stood up easily - a knight's armour didn't weight that much in contrary to popular belief, and even plate armour was very agile, but he was in much more direct danger when he had to pull himself up and was constantly attacked, so they just preferred repeated glorious charges.

So, yeah, charging "ranged" units seem fairly reasonable in some examples. Of course shooting in melee is ridiculous - noone is ever going to let you wind up a crossbow when he's near you. Shooting into melee isn't, though. When it comes to elves just remember Haldir's elves in Lord of the Rings - their aim was terrifying and they had no problem hitting enemies in combat with their arrows. As for human/other archers... I really believe that "you can shoot a unit in melee but only the models that are more than 3" from your models" is a perfect rule. In WFB it was ridiculous that you could've had 10-ranks of 5 men bus and you couldn't shoot it's enormous sides even though those men were nowhere near your soldiers.

Edit: I found the polish name for that cavalry formation, direct english translation would be "wedge crown". Unfortunately google doesn't really say anything (although wikipedia's article on cavalry formations stated that they sometimes used small but powerful cavalry crossbows made of steel), so I assume it was purely a polish invention in those times.

Winding a cross bow may seem ridiculous but so are hammers with a range of 12 game inches.

This is a simple fantasy skirmish game, not a realistic simulation of mediaeval warfare. For that matter, weapons such as javelins, bows and pila can easily be used at short range (pila were specifically designed for it), while the Skink boltshooter is a magic powered raygun if we want to look at fantasy elements.

I'm glad that people are running AoS tournaments with some imposed point system and scenarios for victory conditions.

The fundamental elements of the game are fun, but just meatgrinding each other to bits until one side is gone will get old fast.

I do want to see ranks come back in some way/shape or form, so if you create a frontage and act like a WHFB unit, you can some bonus to bravery, or armor save, at the cost of your mobility (having to wheel etc).

Then again, WHFB was late-medieval, did people actually use ranks that way or did it just degenerate into sprawling brawls? Ranks forming shield walls strikes me as more of a classical period thing, but I'm no historian by any means.

 More Dakka wrote:
I'm glad that people are running AoS tournaments with some imposed point system and scenarios for victory conditions.

The fundamental elements of the game are fun, but just meatgrinding each other to bits until one side is gone will get old fast.

I do want to see ranks come back in some way/shape or form, so if you create a frontage and act like a WHFB unit, you can some bonus to bravery, or armor save, at the cost of your mobility (having to wheel etc).

Then again, WHFB was late-medieval, did people actually use ranks that way or did it just degenerate into sprawling brawls? Ranks forming shield walls strikes me as more of a classical period thing, but I'm no historian by any means.

Yes formations are always used (however there are always exceptions) throughout history. I think it was not long before WW1/around the start when commanders realized formations are ineffective against firepower never before seen. This was a lesson that should have been learned a lot sooner than it did.

However it is worth noting the way people fight in Warhammer Fantasy Battle is nothing like how they did it in the past.

Well its nice that the people who have accepted AOS are having fun with it, i know its shocking that people who like AoS would have fun playing AoS in a group format but I do wonder when we are going to get passed firing shots at the people who don't like AoS. Saying players had fun playing AoS doesn't suddenly mean the people that don't are wrong.

Im sure it wasn't the intention but the passive aggressive mocking tone of "ohh they had fun internet who knewww!" is really getting tired. People had fun playing AoS maybe people can try talking about a small AoS tourni without feeling the need to belittle others to feel good about it.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
Well its nice that the people who have accepted AOS are having fun with it, i know its shocking that people who like AoS would have fun playing AoS in a group format but I do wonder when we are going to get passed firing shots at the people who don't like AoS. Saying players had fun playing AoS doesn't suddenly mean the people that don't are wrong.

Im sure it wasn't the intention but the passive aggressive mocking tone of "ohh they had fun internet who knewww!" is really getting tired. People had fun playing AoS maybe people can try talking about a small AoS tourni without feeling the need to belittle others to feel good about it.

just like the people who don't like it saying that the game is for simpletons got old real quick, but the critics cry "freedom of speech" everytime they are asked to take their rude comments elsewhere...
it gets just as old to read the critics coming and saying this is the worst game ever, play Warmachine or KoW if you want a "real" game...

as many people have said, the GW fans don't go around to other games' sub-forums slagging them off for enjoying a product, so why have they had to take so much abuse from the critics???
it is not like GW fans made the game...
if you think the AoS people are belittling others, maybe go back and read how many AoS fans have been belittled over the last 6 weeks...
i have not seen any AoS fans "firing shots at the people who don't like AoS" in any kind of equal amount compared to the mean things the critics have been saying...
i have been utterly shocked by the behavior of a few of the detractors in these threads, and lost all respect for anything they have to say...
a little sarcastic response to that is not passive-aggressive, it is sarcasm...
if the critics can do it, so can the fans...
at least the fans don't do it in a vicious hurtful manner...

cheers
jah

 jah-joshua wrote:

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
Well its nice that the people who have accepted AOS are having fun with it, i know its shocking that people who like AoS would have fun playing AoS in a group format but I do wonder when we are going to get passed firing shots at the people who don't like AoS. Saying players had fun playing AoS doesn't suddenly mean the people that don't are wrong.

Im sure it wasn't the intention but the passive aggressive mocking tone of "ohh they had fun internet who knewww!" is really getting tired. People had fun playing AoS maybe people can try talking about a small AoS tourni without feeling the need to belittle others to feel good about it.

just like the people who don't like it saying that the game is for simpletons got old real quick, but the critics cry "freedom of speech" everytime they are asked to take their rude comments elsewhere...
it gets just as old to read the critics coming and saying this is the worst game ever, play Warmachine or KoW if you want a "real" game...

as many people have said, the GW fans don't go around to other games' sub-forums slagging them off for enjoying a product, so why have they had to take so much abuse from the critics???
it is not like GW fans made the game...
if you think the AoS people are belittling others, maybe go back and read how many AoS fans have been belittled over the last 6 weeks...
i have not seen any AoS fans "firing shots at the people who don't like AoS" in any kind of equal amount compared to the mean things the critics have been saying...
i have been utterly shocked by the behavior of a few of the detractors in these threads, and lost all respect for anything they have to say...
a little sarcastic response to that is not passive-aggressive, it is sarcasm...
if the critics can do it, so can the fans...
at least the fans don't do it in a vicious hurtful manner...

cheers
jah

Most of the locked threads and mod edited comments are from pro AOS players being rude or offensive to others. I have seen very few posts from those who don't like the game being offensive to anyone.

The fans are more rude and vicious than those who don't like it.