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.

You are wrong dude... At the end of the day at least you enjoy it... love you too.

 darkcloak wrote:
So how does this relate to AoS? Well longtime fans of WFB will tell you the same thing about their hobby as I have just told you about Conan. WFB was a fun game and it had lots of thinking involved. Fast forward 30 years and what do we have? A watered down ruleset, scale creep (or is that scale steamrolling?), PDF army books, useless accessories, and more of the same shut up and buy attitude.

You could say that GW has done for Warhammer what De'Camp did for Conan.

Good way to convey your dislike for the AoS direction. I'm wondering why you list PDF rule books as a negative aspect of the game. What's wrong with that?

Maybe he likes playing on a cluttered table? lol.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Spoiler:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Orock wrote:
And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.

Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book.
, it is horrible.

I disagree the rules are thought out exactly the way they were supposed to be... They are simple, easy to learn, quick to play, its no longer a tabletop war-game, it's more a tabletop war rpg... Which is great imo
already got plans for self made scenario but I am waiting for the other forces to be released, warscrolls of the old armies no longer fit in (mostly) and 2 factions is not enough.

The only RPG element in this game is if you win a game you get a bonus next game you play. Can you explain the RPG side of this game? I may be missing something but in the hefty 4 page rule set I saw there was nothing RPG aside from that one singular rule. This game is no more RPG than any other normal wargame.

Other than that he is correct, it's just poorly done rules. I don't blame him for staying clear of them.

you want me to explain the role playing side if this game? Ok... You create an army if goblins and dragons and you play a scenario(dungeon) that has specific themes, goals and setting that you and others enjoy, you role play as your army as a whole instead of an individual and you have many ways to play them in house scenarios and ones you make yourself... The DM is the rulekeeper as he irons out the rules people complain about time "do lance tips count as models" but there is no need for a rules keeper (or dungeon master or scenario lords) if you have sensible like minded players... And your character is your army, your stats are your units etc.. But you are now going to say I am wrong and continue pouring steam out like a Duardin in the realm of Aqshy

Oh... so the same as any other Table Top Wargame then. Get 2 forces of your choosing, battle it out to the death, sometimes with someone helping out with the rules and make a story out of it? What game does not do this? Most games do this and do it better.

Just saying...

As predicted or "just as planned"... Most games are not as heavily into scenarios as AoS and lets be clear...AoS is what? 2 weeks old... Most other games have had plenty of time to iron things out... Yes I see AoS as a whole new game and not 9th fantasy... But you will again say I am wrong like an Aelf at a duardin feast.

No it is not 2 weeks old, it had years to be developed and thought out by one of the biggest table top companies. They likely have the next year or more worth of stuff ready for AOS already. It is only 2 weeks old to us.

Now if AOS radically changes over the next few months I may start paying it, but as it is even with its "2 weeks since release" excuse it is pretty bad. And Flames of War is 100% Scenarios, most games are in fact 100% scenario driven. Infinity is, Black Powder and the list is endless. AOS has next to no decent Scenarios.

I mean, it's ok to like it dude, just be honest about the game...

so I am dishonest now? I am pretty sure its all opinions at this point... Either way, HONESTLY, I love the rules and love the style of game... And In my opinion has RPG like areas not seen on other war-games (some have as well, but scenarios are a key aspect of AoS) but that is just my opinion which you think is dishonest and wrong, no wonder GW needed new players for fantasy, you are as angry as a Khorne daemon at a wood self wedding.

You say it is Scenario Driven like no other game... but how many scenarios are there? You have like 3 in the main book and then the ones in the starter (scenarios that only work if you have X models). How is that a scenario based game? Unless I missed some scenarios. You are saying things about this game that aren't true, it is not Scenario driven at all. Maybe next few months it will be, but at the moment it's use the basic 3 scenario set ups or make your own Scenarios... which ALL games have (most games have better base scenarios and more of them). I think what you say about the game is dishonest, you like the game (fine, odd but fine) but what you are saying about the game is incorrect. It is not scenario driven, it is bring your crap and plonk it front of someone else driven.

I don't play fantasy mate... Played it for a try but that is about it. They needed new players because they don't know how to handle their company I assume, but I cannot be sure.

so you want a 2 week old game to have heaps of scenarios because? Lets ease players in first buddy.. Remember some people do not play tabletop war-games as religiously as you... Scenarios are limited but I bet my gnoblars more will come with more books for each faction... We still have destruction and undead to slaanesh over... Patience is clearly not one of your virtues.

Yea keep insulting me buddy.

Yes I want a 2 week old game to be a complete game. I don't want half written rubbish, I want a ruleset. You know what most games do? Have a finished ruleset, then have suggestions for beginners and then when the beginers are comfortable they can do the advanced stuff... in the same rulebook. Do you know what this does? This means that players of all abilities can enjoy the game. Do you know what that means? You will have more people buying the game. Do you know what that means? You have more people to play and GW has more money to grow instead of the current situation where they are losing money.

But sure man keep trying to tell me when things are new they should not be complete... because that makes total sense. Now if GW released a beta ruleset for us to give them feedback, then maybe these rules would be ok (for now) but they aren't. These are the full rules.

But yea, the game sucks because im not patient enough to wait for them to write a real ruleset. makes sense I guess.

if you feel insulted I apologise, not my intent but you feverously anti AoS and your whole argument is "gw could have done more, the game is incomplete" but the thing is, the game is complete as it should be, the rules are simple because its the way it was designed, you think they are unfinished and I do not but I am somehow wrong and you are right, some of us rather enjoy it... And then you go off on the "gw is taking money" rant which more or less establishes why you have so much khorne in you... No one forced you to buy into their hobby and others are just as expensive
in short, some of us are content with the simplified rules and do not see it as unfinished, some of us so not want to carry around a 200 page books of rules because our hand needs to be held playing and where we as the players cannot work things out with a simple 5min conversation mid game.

GW SHOULD have done more. Why is the game as complete as it should be? Its not complete at all, or people wouldn't be trying to fix it so much right now.

When did I say GW was taking my money? I am only criticizing their rules. And no, no other hobby is as expensive as GW that I do. GW is more expensive than most companies. Not that this has anything to do with their munted rules.

You dont have to carry around 200 pages for a complete ruleset.

Please stop making stuff up man. What game has a 200 page ruleset? GW doesnt even have that many pages of rules in any of their games.

AOS has NOTHING that ANY game doesn't have and actually has less. Nothing redeemable here but models that look cool.

see that is your problem, you think that talking mid game about rules is "fixing it" its not, the game is complete, its simple and new, I played a few games and the only thing needed fixing was a bigger table, so we combined 2 using portals... Anyways I am going to agree to disagree and wish you all the best in KoW or any other "complete game" and I will go back to thinking up scenarios and unit combos... Best wishes, love you

You are wrong dude... At the end of the day at least you enjoy it... love you too.

there are no rights and wrongs in a subjective opinions of goblins and dragons games... Ponder that before you pounce on others opinions

Played four more games and watched another on Saturday.

We played an objective from the starter set (swapping the cult for Daemons), two vanilla games, and a three-way King of the Hill. Then helped run/watched the Hold or Die (?) scenario from the new hardcover book.

We all had fun again.

So far we're eyeballing warscrolls and saying "yeah, that looks right".

Scenarios are much better than the tabling mechanic. That said, tabling happens quicker than you'd expect.

The continual 4+ isn't too bad now. As you know your own rolls it gets pretty quick once the old habit breaks. Now it's roll-roll-roll-make your saves.

More terrain the better.

It's all about combinations and buffs. The turn two pile-in is happening less the more we play. Retreating is a valid tactic.

And it does feel like an RTS game.

I am disappointed that there's only eight scenarios in the new book. As that's the main 'exclusive' content (all the warscolls are already free anyway).

bitethythumb wrote:


As predicted or "just as planned"... Most games are not as heavily into scenarios as AoS and lets be clear...AoS is what? 2 weeks old... Most other games have had plenty of time to iron things out... Yes I see AoS as a whole new game and not 9th fantasy... But you will again say I am wrong like an Aelf at a duardin feast.

To play Devil's Advocate, AOS is a simple set of rules based on two already existing sets (WHFB/40K) that have between them nearly 60 years and 15 editions of design experience, by a design studio that employs 90 staff. Why does it need any 'ironing out'?

I should expect it to be perfect straight out of the gates.

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Spoiler:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Orock wrote:
And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.

Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book.
, it is horrible.

I disagree the rules are thought out exactly the way they were supposed to be... They are simple, easy to learn, quick to play, its no longer a tabletop war-game, it's more a tabletop war rpg... Which is great imo
already got plans for self made scenario but I am waiting for the other forces to be released, warscrolls of the old armies no longer fit in (mostly) and 2 factions is not enough.

The only RPG element in this game is if you win a game you get a bonus next game you play. Can you explain the RPG side of this game? I may be missing something but in the hefty 4 page rule set I saw there was nothing RPG aside from that one singular rule. This game is no more RPG than any other normal wargame.

Other than that he is correct, it's just poorly done rules. I don't blame him for staying clear of them.

you want me to explain the role playing side if this game? Ok... You create an army if goblins and dragons and you play a scenario(dungeon) that has specific themes, goals and setting that you and others enjoy, you role play as your army as a whole instead of an individual and you have many ways to play them in house scenarios and ones you make yourself... The DM is the rulekeeper as he irons out the rules people complain about time "do lance tips count as models" but there is no need for a rules keeper (or dungeon master or scenario lords) if you have sensible like minded players... And your character is your army, your stats are your units etc.. But you are now going to say I am wrong and continue pouring steam out like a Duardin in the realm of Aqshy

Oh... so the same as any other Table Top Wargame then. Get 2 forces of your choosing, battle it out to the death, sometimes with someone helping out with the rules and make a story out of it? What game does not do this? Most games do this and do it better.

Just saying...

As predicted or "just as planned"... Most games are not as heavily into scenarios as AoS and lets be clear...AoS is what? 2 weeks old... Most other games have had plenty of time to iron things out... Yes I see AoS as a whole new game and not 9th fantasy... But you will again say I am wrong like an Aelf at a duardin feast.

No it is not 2 weeks old, it had years to be developed and thought out by one of the biggest table top companies. They likely have the next year or more worth of stuff ready for AOS already. It is only 2 weeks old to us.

Now if AOS radically changes over the next few months I may start paying it, but as it is even with its "2 weeks since release" excuse it is pretty bad. And Flames of War is 100% Scenarios, most games are in fact 100% scenario driven. Infinity is, Black Powder and the list is endless. AOS has next to no decent Scenarios.

I mean, it's ok to like it dude, just be honest about the game...

so I am dishonest now? I am pretty sure its all opinions at this point... Either way, HONESTLY, I love the rules and love the style of game... And In my opinion has RPG like areas not seen on other war-games (some have as well, but scenarios are a key aspect of AoS) but that is just my opinion which you think is dishonest and wrong, no wonder GW needed new players for fantasy, you are as angry as a Khorne daemon at a wood self wedding.

You say it is Scenario Driven like no other game... but how many scenarios are there? You have like 3 in the main book and then the ones in the starter (scenarios that only work if you have X models). How is that a scenario based game? Unless I missed some scenarios. You are saying things about this game that aren't true, it is not Scenario driven at all. Maybe next few months it will be, but at the moment it's use the basic 3 scenario set ups or make your own Scenarios... which ALL games have (most games have better base scenarios and more of them). I think what you say about the game is dishonest, you like the game (fine, odd but fine) but what you are saying about the game is incorrect. It is not scenario driven, it is bring your crap and plonk it front of someone else driven.

I don't play fantasy mate... Played it for a try but that is about it. They needed new players because they don't know how to handle their company I assume, but I cannot be sure.

so you want a 2 week old game to have heaps of scenarios because? Lets ease players in first buddy.. Remember some people do not play tabletop war-games as religiously as you... Scenarios are limited but I bet my gnoblars more will come with more books for each faction... We still have destruction and undead to slaanesh over... Patience is clearly not one of your virtues.

Yea keep insulting me buddy.

Yes I want a 2 week old game to be a complete game. I don't want half written rubbish, I want a ruleset. You know what most games do? Have a finished ruleset, then have suggestions for beginners and then when the beginers are comfortable they can do the advanced stuff... in the same rulebook. Do you know what this does? This means that players of all abilities can enjoy the game. Do you know what that means? You will have more people buying the game. Do you know what that means? You have more people to play and GW has more money to grow instead of the current situation where they are losing money.

But sure man keep trying to tell me when things are new they should not be complete... because that makes total sense. Now if GW released a beta ruleset for us to give them feedback, then maybe these rules would be ok (for now) but they aren't. These are the full rules.

But yea, the game sucks because im not patient enough to wait for them to write a real ruleset. makes sense I guess.

if you feel insulted I apologise, not my intent but you feverously anti AoS and your whole argument is "gw could have done more, the game is incomplete" but the thing is, the game is complete as it should be, the rules are simple because its the way it was designed, you think they are unfinished and I do not but I am somehow wrong and you are right, some of us rather enjoy it... And then you go off on the "gw is taking money" rant which more or less establishes why you have so much khorne in you... No one forced you to buy into their hobby and others are just as expensive
in short, some of us are content with the simplified rules and do not see it as unfinished, some of us so not want to carry around a 200 page books of rules because our hand needs to be held playing and where we as the players cannot work things out with a simple 5min conversation mid game.

GW SHOULD have done more. Why is the game as complete as it should be? Its not complete at all, or people wouldn't be trying to fix it so much right now.

When did I say GW was taking my money? I am only criticizing their rules. And no, no other hobby is as expensive as GW that I do. GW is more expensive than most companies. Not that this has anything to do with their munted rules.

You dont have to carry around 200 pages for a complete ruleset.

Please stop making stuff up man. What game has a 200 page ruleset? GW doesnt even have that many pages of rules in any of their games.

AOS has NOTHING that ANY game doesn't have and actually has less. Nothing redeemable here but models that look cool.

see that is your problem, you think that talking mid game about rules is "fixing it" its not, the game is complete, its simple and new, I played a few games and the only thing needed fixing was a bigger table, so we combined 2 using portals... Anyways I am going to agree to disagree and wish you all the best in KoW or any other "complete game" and I will go back to thinking up scenarios and unit combos... Best wishes, love you

You are wrong dude... At the end of the day at least you enjoy it... love you too.

there are no rights and wrongs in a subjective opinions of goblins and dragons games... Ponder that before you pounce on others opinions

There are when someone claims the game has RPG traits and it is a Scenario based game... which are false claims about the game.

So yes there are rights and wrongs when talking about rules that exist.

AoS is not a RPG. Period, hands down. This isn't up to personal opinion, it just isn't. You don't take the role of a general, you move models around in a fixed ruleset to achieve fixed goals. There's nothing RPG in this.The only RPG aspect tabletop games ever had were campaigns where some models of your army continously improved after won battles (unless you're a Necron :( )and in some campaigns, you could even make choices that influenced the rest of the campaign (until it gets retconned).

AoS does not even have campaigns as of now, let alone scenarios.

Give the game time? For what? AoS is a minimum effort game. It was deliberately designed to be as less work as possible for GW, it had years to be developed and the end result is an insult for everyone who seriously designs games. Throwing rules at your customers that don't even cover all basics (!), expecting them to do your work is neither RPG nor good design. It's lazy.

Played my first games of AoS over the weekend, Had some friends round and gave it a go,

Played the first couple of games with the rules as written and it was ok a little clunky at times but we got there. We then had some games using some house rules (measuring base to base, ignoring weapons for line of sight, tweaks to charging) and it worked a lot better for us games seemed to flow and were relatively quick affairs.

I have to say I played these games with like minded friends where we were happy to balance our armies and use common sense and a bit of give and take to ensure we had fun with this ruleset, I feel sorry for guys looking for pickup games as this doesn't feel like that kind of game and I really have no idea how it will be made tournament friendly.

Overall we had fun with it, but I'm not sure if I will still be playing it in a year or two, I think that will depend on GW getting me hooked on an army I want to collect and play with, as all we have is the Sigmarines (kinda meh but good conversion potential) and Khorne (nice minis but not very interesting to me) it would be nice to see the other races new look and see if there is anything I like.

So that's what I think after a weekend of play. I'm sure ymmv

 Sigvatr wrote:
The only RPG aspect tabletop games ever had were campaigns where some models of your army continuously improved after won battles (unless you're a Necron :( )and in some campaigns, you could even make choices that influenced the rest of the campaign (until it gets retconned).

The qualify as an RPG you really need to play a role and interact with the environment within that role, player progression has little or nothing to do with it. I suppose all wargames are RPG's in a very small and limited way as most of them have you playing the role of some kind of unseen general. There are tabletop RPGs but they are very different beasts.

While its possible to have an RPG with only 4 pages of rules there absolutely needs to be a GM to allow the kind of player freedom that RPGs require.

AoS is definitely not an RPG except in the very loosest of terms.

I feel like I'm beating on a really pulverised horse here, but the other end of it is, tight balanced rules do not prevent role playing or narrative play - it is easier to ignore an element of the rules than to build it yourself.

The new big book worth it if you don't play the two starter box factions?

 Trapthem wrote:
The new big book worth it if you don't play the two starter box factions?

I'm not sure yet. I'm glad I got it but it is expensive.

It has:
- Fluff of where we're up to in this Age (imagery/presentation heavy)
- Eight new scenarios
- Rules for battles in two of the realms
- Warscrolls (none new; they will always be free online/in the app)

2 things I like to clarify.

Conan. Yes I read the comics too, or at least as many as I could and marvel did a swell job of making Conan himself again. I didn't mention the comics or movies for the sake of brevity. I could go on at length about the films, the first Dino film was spot on, if a little canonically incorrect. Dino is a big Conan fan and you have to remember that Conan the Destroyer was not supposed to be the same sort of film as Barbarian. It was the 70s, Dino had a lot of great films under his belt and Destroyer was more of an attempted comedy than an actual Conan story. Though I will say that the plot premise for that one was actually quite good. The new Conan film gets passed off as modern day hogwash, but I think that compared to Destroyer its miles better. And how does Conan win in the end of that one? He uses his brains! At any rate Conan went through some bad times thanks to no-name authors and mismanaged property rights, but he is still around and still viable as a storytelling medium.

PDFs. Why do I list these as a bad thing? Because GW is more than capable of giving away free rules, but they can't be bothered to FAQ anything in a timely manner? Some people paid $70 for the new SM dex in which RAW Space Marines can't take vehicles without Chapter Tactics. Don't start a debate about it here. Look in YMDC if that's your gig. So with no quality control for products they expect money for how can we expect any quality from a free product? I also firmly believe that the reason the rules are PDFs are because the old armies and probably AoS itself is destined for specialist game status. Meaning next year there will be no AoS and no Warhammer Fantasy of any kind. The PDFs are a death knell. Y'all just don't know a dying breath when ya hear one.

So if you wanna chat about Conan or something done, PM me. Anything else related to AoS is going to get no attention whatsoever from me. I fully intend to never play the game and I am happy with that because for me, getting into AoS would be like buying Conan pastiches. I also plan on curtailing any GW purchases for a long time. One must speak the language to communicate, after all.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

To play Devil's Advocate, AOS is a simple set of rules based on two already existing sets (WHFB/40K) that have between them nearly 60 years and 15 editions of design experience, by a design studio that employs 90 staff. Why does it need any 'ironing out'?

I should expect it to be perfect straight out of the gates.

Exalted because this is spot on. WHFB has existed for going on 30 years and 40k for close to that, yet GW still has no clue have to make a game like this. They change focus midway which is why we get overpowered and underpowered books in 40k all the time. They also have never figured out how to balance or control their games to any real way other than expect people will not be gits and will play to the spirit of the game instead of to the rules as written. AoS is a culmination of their inability to write a decent game, so much so that they have barely written anything. After so many years 40k and WHFB/AoS should be the most perfect ruleset ever, but they are still not even remotely close to being good rules.

And for those who want to once again drag up the "But GW is a model company" BS line they use to excuse their lousy rules, don't bother. The rules have made up such a large part of their bottom line for years, that without the rules being redone over and over and over requiring people to keep rebuying, there would be no GW anymore. Without their games/rules there is no reason for people to buy large quantities of their minis.

I finally came up with an idea of what to do with the Ugly Khorne beasty thing from the box.

Skull skin has mostly been shaved off and will be filled and the left knee will get a spike/horn press molded from the right knee.

It's right hand makes an excellent replacement head once you part it from the armoured bit at the back (it's a bit Predetorish IMHO). I just need a new hand for it now. To the bits box robin!

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
The only RPG aspect tabletop games ever had were campaigns where some models of your army continuously improved after won battles (unless you're a Necron :( )and in some campaigns, you could even make choices that influenced the rest of the campaign (until it gets retconned).

The qualify as an RPG you really need to play a role and interact with the environment within that role, player progression has little or nothing to do with it. I suppose all wargames are RPG's in a very small and limited way as most of them have you playing the role of some kind of unseen general. There are tabletop RPGs but they are very different beasts.

While its possible to have an RPG with only 4 pages of rules there absolutely needs to be a GM to allow the kind of player freedom that RPGs require.

AoS is definitely not an RPG except in the very loosest of terms.

when I said AoS is trying to be a "wargame" RPG, I mean in the sense that you really need to play the scenarios, the rules alone only allow for a very basic game where the scenarios enhance the experience, not many tabletop games focus on that as AoS does, its why the books have more scenarios than rules (and the scenarios enhance the game by giving more rules) AoS also focuses a lot of the environment and how its used.. the whole point about it being RPG is not that it is an RPG(role playing, characters, skills, etc) but you have to play it with an RPG mindset i.e you are playing a story not a wargame... if you get what I mean, sure it lacks characters and progression in the same sense as a typical RPG does but the story does progress with the scenarios and I guess over time AoS will bring out many scenarios for each faction and gives you the basics of making your own (or twist a current scenario a bit to suit your needs or take an idea from 2 scenarios and combine them)

more or less I am saying that AoS needs to be played as a "story"/scenario rather than just a war game and in all honesty a GM or SCENARIO LORD (please catch on) is needed as he could be the "decider" of the rules that people are not sure about... it feels as though you get more out of it that way, but nothing stops just 2 people playing it like nothing stops just 2 dudes playing an RPG. but I am not expecting people to understand, it seems to be AoS is like marmite, you either love it or hate it but for some reason those who hate it REALLY hate it... they cannot even find any good qualities about it and the good qualities that exist are not even good enough :/ sad really...

Yes, but I can play WHFB or any other wargame in a campaign or list of scenarios as you describe and get more out of that wargame, but still have a decent game to fall back on in a one-off pick up game.

Saying that "AoS is good if you do X, Y and Z" or saying it's best played a certain way, aren't really good excuses. A wargame should be good straight out of the box. Campaigns and scenarios are meant to add something different to a game, not fix its issues.

 darkcloak wrote:
scale creep (or is that scale steamrolling?)

In another thread (the one with scale in it's title) someone proved that there's no scale creep in AoS set whatsoever. :-)

 darkcloak wrote:
PDF army books

For some reason you sound like that's something bad.

Hey ho, just skim read all this to get a feel for the arguments as I'm tempted to play this! Enjoyed WHFB but only got to play rarely so used to get very hacked off with remembering the rules, as every codex seemed to have their own version and we spent half the time looking up rules rather than rolling dice and having fun. So AOS looked good.
In summary, lots of people seem very hacked off with the new simple rules for a variety of reasons, most of which seem to based on a concept of being "owed something" by GW or feeling let down. Lots of these arguments seem to be based on terminology or local play styles, so not sure how relevant they really are, but understand why people are upset.
On the other hand I see a fair few posts by people who have played it and said they had fun, but don't remember seeing that many saying they hated it? So, do we have any idea whether people generally like the game after playing it? Rather than bitching about rules change, And why? And please try to be objective.

Download the rules for free, have a good read and play a couple of games with proxy models.

There is a lot of exaggeration on both sides of the question.

There certainly is a playable game in there. It has some rough spots, the omission of points values or army lists is IMO a serious problem, and arguably it could have been a lot better in various ways. But in itself it can be played and is not difficult to learn.

 Inflatable love badger wrote:
Hey ho, just skim read all this to get a feel for the arguments as I'm tempted to play this! Enjoyed WHFB but only got to play rarely so used to get very hacked off with remembering the rules, as every codex seemed to have their own version and we spent half the time looking up rules rather than rolling dice and having fun. So AOS looked good.
In summary, lots of people seem very hacked off with the new simple rules for a variety of reasons, most of which seem to based on a concept of being "owed something" by GW or feeling let down. Lots of these arguments seem to be based on terminology or local play styles, so not sure how relevant they really are, but understand why people are upset.
On the other hand I see a fair few posts by people who have played it and said they had fun, but don't remember seeing that many saying they hated it? So, do we have any idea whether people generally like the game after playing it? Rather than bitching about rules change, And why? And please try to be objective.

The rules are objectively bad.

HOWEVER since the rules are free try it for yourself. Play the game as the rules tell you. You will then find hole and flaws that make this game a truly bad game.

Those that like it say that in order to enjoy it you must:

Houserule tha bad rules
Play with like minded friends
Design your own scenarios

So if you want to do that and put in the effort you may find these rules fun. If you just want to play the game out of the book I think you will find few people truly play this game as the rules are written. Sign of bad rules? Yes. But even bad rules are redeemable if you put in the work. However most would argue GW should have put in that work.

Ultimately try the rules as written, then decide if you will move on or edit the rules (or maybe even play the rules as is).

Personally if you like streamlined rules but also enjoy mass battles then look at KOW. They have free rules and outside of personal taste there are no flaws with those (as far as I can tell).

I stopped playing GW games a few years ago now but this is (for a number of reasons) tempting me back.

The discussion about it all though has bizarrely reminded me of a scene from the first Matrix :

Do not try to bend the rules, that's impossible. Instead, only try to realise the truth.

What truth?

There are no rules... Then you will see it is not the rules that bend, it is only ourselves.


For some this is clearly a bad thing but I personally find the concept liberating. Looking forward to getting a demo in and am definitely withholding judgement until then but for now I'm cautiously optimistic.

 Chimera_Calvin wrote:
I stopped playing GW games a few years ago now but this is (for a number of reasons) tempting me back.

The discussion about it all though has bizarrely reminded me of a scene from the first Matrix :

Do not try to bend the rules, that's impossible. Instead, only try to realise the truth.

What truth?

There are no rules... Then you will see it is not the rules that bend, it is only ourselves.


For some this is clearly a bad thing but I personally find the concept liberating. Looking forward to getting a demo in and am definitely withholding judgement until then but for now I'm cautiously optimistic.

As said by many people though, in a game with rules it is incredibly simple to remove rules. This rule set does nothing but limit options. Instead it would have been better to get real rules and players that like sandbox rules can simply remove rules to fit their needs. Removing rules is easier than adding them.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Chimera_Calvin wrote:
I stopped playing GW games a few years ago now but this is (for a number of reasons) tempting me back.

The discussion about it all though has bizarrely reminded me of a scene from the first Matrix :

Do not try to bend the rules, that's impossible. Instead, only try to realise the truth.

What truth?

There are no rules... Then you will see it is not the rules that bend, it is only ourselves.


For some this is clearly a bad thing but I personally find the concept liberating. Looking forward to getting a demo in and am definitely withholding judgement until then but for now I'm cautiously optimistic.

As said by many people though, in a game with rules it is incredibly simple to remove rules. This rule set does nothing but limit options. Instead it would have been better to get real rules and players that like sandbox rules can simply remove rules to fit their needs. Removing rules is easier than adding them.

except that those "many" people, "many of them" complain about the "settra does not kneel" rules :/ saying its "childish" when they can just ignore it, there is literally no pleasing the anti AoS side, to me it seems like most of them are just angry their game of WHFB is gone and they cannot deal with it... play KoW, your models are not wasted, move on, dream on, live, enjoy... AoS is not a bad game no matter how many times you say it the rules are not bad especially if you play it as intended (I mean I enjoyed it and many other people have as well, what are we all mad or wrong for enjoying something?)and GW has said many times "they are a mini company" and that is what they are aiming at, like it or not GW is NOW a mini company with the focus on making minis... heck I would be more than happy for them to get rid of WHFB and 40K rules just to produce miniatures and focus on painting and modelling (having white dwarf be a techniques book with tips etc) and some lore books in between, leave the rules to the great experts at KoW... or other games who created their rules with the players participating, which is exactly what AoS is trying to do, its trying to make YOU make the GAME YOU want... either way sigmarines look bloody awesome and GW still makes the best damn minis out there...

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Chimera_Calvin wrote:
I stopped playing GW games a few years ago now but this is (for a number of reasons) tempting me back.

The discussion about it all though has bizarrely reminded me of a scene from the first Matrix :

Do not try to bend the rules, that's impossible. Instead, only try to realise the truth.

What truth?

There are no rules... Then you will see it is not the rules that bend, it is only ourselves.


For some this is clearly a bad thing but I personally find the concept liberating. Looking forward to getting a demo in and am definitely withholding judgement until then but for now I'm cautiously optimistic.

As said by many people though, in a game with rules it is incredibly simple to remove rules. This rule set does nothing but limit options. Instead it would have been better to get real rules and players that like sandbox rules can simply remove rules to fit their needs. Removing rules is easier than adding them.

except that those "many" people, "many of them" complain about the "settra does not kneel" rules :/ saying its "childish" when they can just ignore it, there is literally no pleasing the anti AoS side, to me it seems like most of them are just angry their game of WHFB is gone and they cannot deal with it... play KoW, your models are not wasted, move on, dream on, live, enjoy... AoS is not a bad game no matter how many times you say it the rules are not bad especially if you play it as intended and GW has said many times "they are a mini company" and that is what they are aiming at not, like it or not GW is NOW a mini company with the focus on making minis... heck I would be more than happy for them to get rid of WHFB and 40K rules just to produce miniatures and focus on painting and modelling (having white dwarf be a techniques book with tips etc) and some lore books in between, leave the rules to the great experts at KoW... or other games who created their rules with the players participating, which is exactly what AoS is trying to do, its trying to make YOU make the GAME YOU want... either way sigmarines look bloody awesome.

You can always ignore bad rules yes. But you can also ignore any rules so having complete rules is better for this reason.

AOS is a bad game. How is it not? Nobody can say why this game is apparently good, only they say if you do X it can be fun. Even you say if you ignore the childish rules it gets better. Would it not be better if the only rules you had to ignore where ones that you felt like changing for flexibility, instead of AOS where you change them to make the game playable?

How about you try and convince the other guy why the rules are good? After all if they are good it will be easy. I mean, the proof of how bad this game is is how many rules you will ignore and change to play it. Hence why I suggested he plays it.

The lack of rules and structure is quite liberating. Don't fear people so much that you must try and enforce balance via arbitrary rules that can then be lawyered, twisted and manipulated.
That is what the loudest and most vocal complainers are really complaining about, their fear of other people. They fear that someone will get an unfair advantage over them because no rule says they can't. They fear that others might enjoy something without the structure they crave.
They are the epitome of order. Rigid, unbending, unimaginative and doomed to fail in the end times.
AoS and it's fans are Chaos, raw, imaginative, unfettered and free to do what thou wilt.
Move with the times. WHFB and it's structure is dead, it's dull eyed adherents burn their models in protest and wail fruitlessly, railing against the changes. Their noise and thrashing only attracts more interest, more people attracted by their nerdy protests, like sharks around a fat wounded porpoise.
Shoving them aside, the newbies greedily feast on the bright colourful goodies. If you hate AoS and GW, please shout and whine to the four corners, rail harder! It brings more people, hungry from relief from the tedium of dry, boring rulebooks into the fold, eager to buy your discarded toys repaint them in gaudy golds and dance them across a revitalised tabletop war.
No Points, no rules, no problem. ;-)

 r_squared wrote:
The lack of rules and structure is quite liberating. Don't fear people so much that you must try and enforce balance via arbitrary rules that can then be lawyered, twisted and manipulated.
That is what the loudest and most vocal complainers are really complaining about, their fear of other people. They fear that someone will get an unfair advantage over them because no rule says they can't. They fear that others might enjoy something without the structure they crave.
They are the epitome of order. Rigid, unbending, unimaginative and doomed to fail in the end times.
AoS and it's fans are Chaos, raw, imaginative, unfettered and free to do what thou wilt.
Move with the times. WHFB and it's structure is dead, it's dull eyed adherents burn their models in protest and wail fruitlessly, railing against the changes. Their noise and thrashing only attracts more interest, more people attracted by their nerdy protests, like sharks around a fat wounded porpoise.
Shoving them aside, the newbies greedily feast on the bright colourful goodies. If you hate AoS and GW, please shout and whine to the four corners, rail harder! It brings more people, hungry from relief from the tedium of dry, boring rulebooks into the fold, eager to buy your discarded toys repaint them in gaudy golds and dance them across a revitalised tabletop war.
No Points, no rules, no problem. ;-)

there is only WAAAAGH


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Chimera_Calvin wrote:
I stopped playing GW games a few years ago now but this is (for a number of reasons) tempting me back.

The discussion about it all though has bizarrely reminded me of a scene from the first Matrix :

Do not try to bend the rules, that's impossible. Instead, only try to realise the truth.

What truth?

There are no rules... Then you will see it is not the rules that bend, it is only ourselves.


For some this is clearly a bad thing but I personally find the concept liberating. Looking forward to getting a demo in and am definitely withholding judgement until then but for now I'm cautiously optimistic.

As said by many people though, in a game with rules it is incredibly simple to remove rules. This rule set does nothing but limit options. Instead it would have been better to get real rules and players that like sandbox rules can simply remove rules to fit their needs. Removing rules is easier than adding them.

except that those "many" people, "many of them" complain about the "settra does not kneel" rules :/ saying its "childish" when they can just ignore it, there is literally no pleasing the anti AoS side, to me it seems like most of them are just angry their game of WHFB is gone and they cannot deal with it... play KoW, your models are not wasted, move on, dream on, live, enjoy... AoS is not a bad game no matter how many times you say it the rules are not bad especially if you play it as intended and GW has said many times "they are a mini company" and that is what they are aiming at not, like it or not GW is NOW a mini company with the focus on making minis... heck I would be more than happy for them to get rid of WHFB and 40K rules just to produce miniatures and focus on painting and modelling (having white dwarf be a techniques book with tips etc) and some lore books in between, leave the rules to the great experts at KoW... or other games who created their rules with the players participating, which is exactly what AoS is trying to do, its trying to make YOU make the GAME YOU want... either way sigmarines look bloody awesome.

You can always ignore bad rules yes. But you can also ignore any rules so having complete rules is better for this reason.

AOS is a bad game. How is it not? Nobody can say why this game is apparently good, only they say if you do X it can be fun. Even you say if you ignore the childish rules it gets better. Would it not be better if the only rules you had to ignore where ones that you felt like changing for flexibility, instead of AOS where you change them to make the game playable?

How about you try and convince the other guy why the rules are good? After all if they are good it will be easy. I mean, the proof of how bad this game is is how many rules you will ignore and change to play it. Hence why I suggested he plays it.

but here is the thing, no one who I have played with has ignored any of the rules, I actually enjoy the role playing rules, I just see them as auto specials that other characters get, some of them are pretty cool (like bribing your opponent to get to control their unit, always carry a spare £5 JUST in case I say and since its a buddy he usually buys a pack of beer to share) either way I have enjoyed AoS and the only rules I altered are not rules but how we play i.e ignoring lances when LoS etc... but that falls under "THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE" i.e talk to your opponent ... the only thing I say is that AoS needs more environmental rules but I guess that will come with the other realm books, we have been making rules for bridges and rivers etc to play (like any time 2 monsters on a bridge, roll a dice, bridge collapses on x dice) and if there is a river stream any unit that goes over the river rolls a dice x mortal wounds (taken away with the currents)... I am even thinking of making an all air battle scenario where we only use flying units and have air currents and such that enhance speed, slow down, hurt shooting etc... so basically we have been ADDING rules to the game and not taking them away and since its AoS is so simple in nature its so bloody easy to add rules and things..

The most important rule is to talk to your opponent when there is confusion in the rules. Saying spear tips don't count as LOS is not a house rule because of confusion in the rules, it is a house rule to make AOS slightly better to play.

Which is why this ruleset sucks, because that is what most people are doing. Changing bad rules to make the game ok to play.

Are you saying most games need to spell out that you can't hurt someone by shooting his lance, or are saying that good games let you hurt someone by shooting him in the lance?