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.

bitethythumb wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:
tell me what stops the player with the "weaker" toys from saying "nah this is unfair, can you remove, this and this, they are overpowered etc" : and continue from then on?

The rules?

Conceptually, AoS is about letting players play with their toys. If Player A intends to play with their Giant, then the answer must be "Yes!!, you may play with your Giant." For Player B to say "No" defeats the entire point of the game.

the point of the game is to play and enjoy yourself, I played against someone using only giants, I lost, I still had fun... The games purpose was successful

also the game has allowed to build better more thematic armies like 12 steamtanks (the vinci) it has allowed me to create more varied and fun army list that could not happen before like an all flying army,

heck I might start a Dogs of war army once again...WHFB could not let me do that AoS can and therefore its succeeded in its purpose rather than failed...

how many people have talked about how much better creating an army has become?

I rarely hear anyone mention that you can build almost any type of army you imagine.. Sure some things may be bad but talking to someone fixes that... In short, AoS foes not defeat the purpose of the game, it changed it and for some its for the better....

By the way which rule forces you to play against people you do not want to play against?

I specifically called out Giants, because I included Giants in the army when I played AoS, and it was fun to see them on the board.

If you go through the trouble of building a bunch of Steam Tanks (assume all of the "classic" variations), I will gladly play against you, because it would be cool to see a bunch of Steam Tanks on the board.

With AoS, I resumed my Dogs of War, which I stopped playing in 8E due to lack of GW support. To me, that's a huge success.

Creating an army isn't that difficult, it's the issue playing a homebrew list and having to worry about getting points "right". AoS lets me focus on what each unit does on the tabletop, versus how much it should cost for list building & balancing purposes. It's much easier and faster.

The ability to homebrew or mix & match in AoS should not be underestimated, although more unit templating would have been helpful.

I am thankful to have good opponents to play against.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:
tell me what stops the player with the "weaker" toys from saying "nah this is unfair, can you remove, this and this, they are overpowered etc" : and continue from then on?

The rules?

Conceptually, AoS is about letting players play with their toys. If Player A intends to play with their Giant, then the answer must be "Yes!!, you may play with your Giant." For Player B to say "No" defeats the entire point of the game.

the point of the game is to play and enjoy yourself, I played against someone using only giants, I lost, I still had fun... The games purpose was successful

also the game has allowed to build better more thematic armies like 12 steamtanks (the vinci) it has allowed me to create more varied and fun army list that could not happen before like an all flying army,

heck I might start a Dogs of war army once again...WHFB could not let me do that AoS can and therefore its succeeded in its purpose rather than failed...

how many people have talked about how much better creating an army has become?

I rarely hear anyone mention that you can build almost any type of army you imagine.. Sure some things may be bad but talking to someone fixes that... In short, AoS foes not defeat the purpose of the game, it changed it and for some its for the better....

By the way which rule forces you to play against people you do not want to play against?

I specifically called out Giants, because I included Giants in the army when I played AoS, and it was fun to see them on the board.

If you go through the trouble of building a bunch of Steam Tanks (assume all of the "classic" variations), I will gladly play against you, because it would be cool to see a bunch of Steam Tanks on the board.

With AoS, I resumed my Dogs of War, which I stopped playing in 8E due to lack of GW support. To me, that's a huge success.

Creating an army isn't that difficult, it's the issue playing a homebrew list and having to worry about getting points "right". AoS lets me focus on what each unit does on the tabletop, versus how much it should cost for list building & balancing purposes. It's much easier and faster.

The ability to homebrew or mix & match in AoS should not be underestimated, although more unit templating would have been helpful.

I am thankful to have good opponents to play against.

well I am torn between 2 themes for an actual force, one being 12 steamtanks (the only ever built) but each one is themed differently... and a couple of mechanised engineers with maybe some dwarf copters/bombers or a wagon train of epicness (think western, I love westerns) which uses horse drawn carriages and other moving things. I am thinking

1 steam tank
1 Celestial Hurricanum
1 Luminark of Hysh
1 War Alter
2 Black Coaches (or more, seems like a good choice)

a couple of death mages and a couple of engineers maybe a few maneaters bodybuards for funzies D: but I am hoping on using the black coaches as the attacking force, using steam tanks as ranged and defensive with the Hysh as champ killer and hurricanum as a defensive structrure... funnily, steam tank gets bonuses from Hurricanum and Hysh and dwarf enginners fix them they are war machines

so far I only have river trolls, hellpit abomination, mummy lord (blood bowl mummy) skellies, necrotect and 3 fanatics ( ) and I got a dwarf engineer, special character of some kind, finished him last night



since bases do not matter you can go wild with the themes, yes that is a bugmans barrel, no dwarf is complete without one... and yea its pretty bad (I know I suck at painting so please no comments on it), but I enjoyed making and painting it every step of the way... the journey is more fun for me then the destination sort of thing... I still need to do some touch ups but this is literally my third complete model in YEARS (you could say its my first ever paint job, well second to the skellies, I started when a kid but I only did base coats and never went further, stopped, AoS got me back into the game, I might start broms dark age as well because I love the minis) and I am just getting the hang of all the painting tricks and tips (I LOVE LIQUID GREEN STUFF)... I only have a few paints so I had to improvise, I guess in a few years I will get a hand of things and be better I still need to get a few more brushes as well, tried W&N but I prefer my pro arte prolene plus stuff (need a smaller brush for detail work)... I also pinned the whole model, arm, head, legs and its pinned to the base and not glues, so I can take him out and replace the base ... and yea that is smoke in his pipe, I got an old electrical wire (from headphone) twisted and painted them to look like smoke, not sure if it works but I like it...

bitethythumb wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

What I see a lot is people are seeing WARHAMMER as only a competitive pokemon style game where random players meet up and fight when in reality it is a paint, build and THEN fight game, people are ignoring the 2 other aspects of the game and focus on the gameplay and at the same time only focusing on the bad and ignoring the good

No, what you are seeing is a large portion of players who prefer competitive games with points values and balance, and their disapproval of the current edition of Warhammer saying "nah, we aren't going to support your way of having fun" when previous editions of the game going back for decades have. They are focusing on what they liked about Warhammer, and are as justified in doing so as you. Not all players saw the game as an aside to the hobby aspect. Not all players felt that points costs were unneeded baggage. Some players are happy with the game as-is, that's fine. Some player's aren't happy, and their opinions are no less legitimate than the first party. The only 'wrong' opinions here are the ones accusing other players of somehow being wrong in what they like to play.

and a lot of those players say things like "AoS is bad it has no points" or "player a can use only giants and abuse the game" or "AoS purposes is A and not B and by not doing A defeats its purpose" which are all subjective opinions and in no way make the game bad, they may disapprove but at a certain point it becomes a constant abuse, people have stated their opinions, time to move on, its like every week is the same thing, heck just recently someone posted about AoS tactics and it was hijacked by comments like "AoS has no tactics, lol" its getting rather stale not being able to discuss the game without having to read why someone thinks AoS sucks.... I want to talk tactics and lore and modelling but dakka does not seem like the place for that, just look at the news and rumours page on AoS, half the pages are off topic about how bad things are... I prefer dakka as a website but it seems like other sites are less biased.

I approach communicating on the internet with the acknowledgement that when someone says "game A is bad because Z" what they mean is "game A is a bad game for me because Z". I doubt everyone who says they don't enjoy AoS is saying that no one enjoys AoS. Anyways, you probably have a point about moving on, but like when many others who have raised this point it's difficult to comply with the idea when the poster perpetuates that line of discussion in the same post they say it should stop. I'll try to stop feeding the beast from here on out, I suppose.

So out of sheer curiosity, what do people think is the best (non-hero, non-monster) unit on a per-wound basis? Ironguts seem to be rather potent in that regard.

I approach communicating on the internet with the acknowledgement that when someone says "game A is bad because Z" what they mean is "game A is a bad game for me because Z". I doubt everyone who says they don't enjoy AoS is saying that no one enjoys AoS. Anyways, you probably have a point about moving on, but like when many others who have raised this point it's difficult to comply with the idea when the poster perpetuates that line of discussion in the same post they say it should stop

well someone has to point it out because clearly people are ignoring that.,, if I just ignored it and moved on they would still contiune, look my comment made you stop feeding the beast

. I'll try to stop feeding the beast from here on out, I suppose.

you can never stop the great maw.

So out of sheer curiosity, what do people think is the best (non-hero, non-monster) unit on a per-wound basis? Ironguts seem to be rather potent in that regard.

Haven't seen any one play it yet in gw or other stores
(My timeing could just be bad to be fair)
One of the local stores bought 2 starter sets in and they are still sitting there one of the staff members I usual talk to telling me they can't get anyone interested in it not even to play a demo game. He said it was like he was a telemarketer just being told nope sorry don't have the time.

I honestly don't think the game is doing that well think only thing that is helping is new releases but that's due to stop for a bit for 40k so am not sure if that break might kill the game.

Wonder if gw is considering being a one game company if sales suck or they will bring out something new

ndeed, and it works fine for most part, i played a great game the other day my hi elves vs two chaos armies everyone was just excited to see how long i could last!
We decided that the hi elves where buying time for civilians to evac and set an a turn win condition if i died before turn 4 it was a total fail and if i made it to turn 6 is was a draw and turn 8 a win! i made it to turn 8 as my last models the crew for my bolt thrower managed to stab a blood warrior to death then got chomped only leaving and hand full of wounded chaos models, we see the board up as a port the civs being evaced by boat, we all decided that the last of the chaos where broad sided to death by the leaving convoy of boats lol

why didn't you just take flying units and be out of range for 8 turns?

Makumba wrote:
why didn't you just take flying units and be out of range for 8 turns?

I'm not sure how to respond to this. Is this genuinely the level that you'd go to in order to 'win' a game playing with friends? Isn't the point to have fun? It's just embarrassing that you'd even consider this as something that you'd actually do.

I've been reading the forums for the last few weeks after being interested in getting back into wargaming after a couple of decades away, and this post is the one that made me sign up just to reply. It honestly left me gobsmacked.

Makumba wrote:

ndeed, and it works fine for most part, i played a great game the other day my hi elves vs two chaos armies everyone was just excited to see how long i could last!
We decided that the hi elves where buying time for civilians to evac and set an a turn win condition if i died before turn 4 it was a total fail and if i made it to turn 6 is was a draw and turn 8 a win! i made it to turn 8 as my last models the crew for my bolt thrower managed to stab a blood warrior to death then got chomped only leaving and hand full of wounded chaos models, we see the board up as a port the civs being evaced by boat, we all decided that the last of the chaos where broad sided to death by the leaving convoy of boats lol

why didn't you just take flying units and be out of range for 8 turns?

because it would not be fun to play like that? but why am I telling you that... you are one of "those" type of players... even if he did take all flying units the other player could just take all shooting units and the game would suck for everyone...




Automatically Appended Next Post:

TonyL707 wrote:

Makumba wrote:
why didn't you just take flying units and be out of range for 8 turns?

I'm not sure how to respond to this. Is this genuinely the level that you'd go to in order to 'win' a game playing with friends? Isn't the point to have fun? It's just embarrassing that you'd even consider this as something that you'd actually do.

I've been reading the forums for the last few weeks after being interested in getting back into wargaming after a couple of decades away, and this post is the one that made me sign up just to reply. It honestly left me gobsmacked.

there is a lot of anti AoS feelings on dakka.. kinda sad really, and I personally think "he" is the type of player GW is trying to move away from... you know, win at all costs and do not care about anything else sorta player...

 bitethythumb wrote:

because it would not be fun to play like that? but why am I telling you that... you are one of "those" type of players... even if he did take all flying units the other player could just take all shooting units and the game would suck for everyone...

Really? You're the one who said that AoS allows for fun lists that 8th didn't, like taking all flying units.

But, I guess you're one of "those" types of players, right?

 infinite_array wrote:

 bitethythumb wrote:

because it would not be fun to play like that? but why am I telling you that... you are one of "those" type of players... even if he did take all flying units the other player could just take all shooting units and the game would suck for everyone...

Really? You're the one who said that AoS allows for fun lists that 8th didn't, like taking all flying units.

But, I guess you're one of "those" types of players, right?

Taking all flying units: A-okay.
Taking all flying units with the intent to only evade and thus guarantee victory: not okay.

One involves playing the system, the other involves gaming the system.

Be easy enough to change the victory conditions so that the "all fliers" approach required some actual engagement and play to be honest. Easier than list restrictions or being really judgemental people for pointing out flaws in the system.

If someone is taking all fliers, don't I just take more Magic and shooters as a counter response?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If someone is taking all fliers, don't I just take more Magic and shooters as a counter response?

And if you don't have enough missile troops? BUY MORE!

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If someone is taking all fliers, don't I just take more Magic and shooters as a counter response?

And if you don't have enough missile troops? BUY MORE!

Well, yeah. After giving out the rules and army lists for free, GW has to make money on the models. Luckily, they just released Sigmarines with ranged weapons.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
And if you don't have enough missile troops? BUY MORE!

Yep, just like in WHFB.

 infinite_array wrote:

 bitethythumb wrote:

because it would not be fun to play like that? but why am I telling you that... you are one of "those" type of players... even if he did take all flying units the other player could just take all shooting units and the game would suck for everyone...

Really? You're the one who said that AoS allows for fun lists that 8th didn't, like taking all flying units.

But, I guess you're one of "those" types of players, right?

take whatever army/unit you want just do not use them like a troll would :/, play so that both parties enjoy themselves not so that you "auto" win because you found a way to abuse a scenario of some kind

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If someone is taking all fliers, don't I just take more Magic and shooters as a counter response?

And if you don't have enough missile troops? BUY MORE!

Well, yeah. After giving out the rules and army lists for free, GW has to make money on the models. Luckily, they just released Sigmarines with ranged weapons.

If you like the game and don't care about models or accurate models, just substitute any archer mini and be done with it. If you do care about the models... well... like you said, GW has to make money somewhere!

 bitethythumb wrote:

take whatever army/unit you want just do not use them like a troll would :/, play so that both parties enjoy themselves not so that you "auto" win because you found a way to abuse a scenario of some kind

Define how a 'troll' would do it? Or is thst just any smart play on my part that doesn't present my whole army on a plate?

And if I don't think letting all my flyers get hacked apart in fights they can't win just for your amusement is 'fun', when I'm forced to engage because of your arbitrary reasons and your high minded decisions on how it 'should' be played, then I'm the one not enjoying myself.

But apparently, that's ok, because it's seemingly all about 'you' having fun.

Deadnight wrote:

 bitethythumb wrote:

take whatever army/unit you want just do not use them like a troll would :/, play so that both parties enjoy themselves not so that you "auto" win because you found a way to abuse a scenario of some kind

Define how a 'troll' would do it? Or is thst just any smart play on my part that doesn't present my whole army on a plate?

And if I don't think letting all my flyers get hacked apart in fights they can't win just for your amusement is 'fun', when I'm forced to engage because of your arbitrary reasons and your high minded decisions on how it 'should' be played, then I'm the one not enjoying myself.

But apparently, that's ok, because it's seemingly all about 'you' having fun.

Are you honestly going to find it fun if you just pass every turn, waiting for turn 6 so that you automatically win without making any movements or attacks? Is your opponent?

Maybe the ruleset shouldn't be so broken as to allow autowins. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

As a note, Magic: The Gathering, a highly competitive tournament with ostensibly an unbroken ruleset also allows for turn 0 (effectively auto) wins.


Edit: to add some meat to this post, it is played in tournaments in a heavily comped (although officially, rather than fanmade) manner. Just like AoS would be, in theory.

Rihgu wrote:


Are you honestly going to find it fun if you just pass every turn, waiting for turn 6 so that you automatically win without making any movements or attacks? Is your opponent?

I can forge an amazing narrative of my flyer doods Biggles and co chomping down on their cigarettes and having s good old chortle at those idiots milling about below. To be fair I will move. I'll zip about in random and annoying patterns and have Biggles thumb his nose and shout 'tally ho chaps' the whole time while he's doing it. Great fun. And I'm sure my mate can forge an amazing narrative about it while his doods shake their fists and holler abuse at my guys.

And when the alternative choice is 'land and die for no gain', I fail to see what is in it for me to simply hand you the win either, when I can do absolutely bugger all about it, and just watch you roll dice while I remove models.

Why is it not fun for you to be a participant. But it's ok for me not to be a participant with the exact same scenario?

Deadnight wrote:

Rihgu wrote:


Are you honestly going to find it fun if you just pass every turn, waiting for turn 6 so that you automatically win without making any movements or attacks? Is your opponent?

I can forge an amazing narrative of my flyer doods Biggles and co chomping down on their cigarettes and having s good old chortle at those idiots milling about below. To be fair I will move. I'll zip about in random and annoying patterns and have Biggles thumb his nose and shout 'tally ho chaps' the whole time while he's doing it. Great fun. And I'm sure my mate can forge an amazing narrative about it while his doods shake their fists and holler abuse at my guys.

And when the alternative choice is 'land and die for no gain', I fail to see what is in it for me to simply hand you the win either, when I can do absolutely bugger all about it, and just watch you roll dice while I remove models.

Why is it not fun for you to be a participant. But it's ok for me not to be a participant with the exact same scenario?

There's absolutely no point in putting down models or playing the game at that point. You can forge that narrative entirely without playing the game.

I guess the problem here is our wildly differing opinions of what is fun. You find it fun to not participate and instead purely forge a narrative. I find it fun to participate AND forge a narrative. If we played, once you deployed your army and I deployed mine, I would say "well, your carrion flap around laughing at my men and my men are hopeless to do anything about it. The carrion win the battle, and my men march off to fight another battle. Good game!" and move on to play another match. That way, you'll get to have your fun and I'll get to have my (albeit slightly delayed) fun and we won't have wasted time *not* playing.

And if you tell me you'll only find it fun if you get to move your models around for 6 turns, I'll use my first turn's movement to march off the board. so you can fly around unimpeded. Wouldn't want my soldiers getting in the way of your movement fun!

Saw a couple of Age of Sigmar games this weekend. The second game, the Ogre played won before the other player got its first turn due to Sudden Death (Ogres had less models).

Both players still agreed the first match was fun, but that wouldn't want to use the Sudden Death rules anymore.

Deadnight wrote:

 bitethythumb wrote:

take whatever army/unit you want just do not use them like a troll would :/, play so that both parties enjoy themselves not so that you "auto" win because you found a way to abuse a scenario of some kind

Define how a 'troll' would do it? Or is thst just any smart play on my part that doesn't present my whole army on a plate?

And if I don't think letting all my flyers get hacked apart in fights they can't win just for your amusement is 'fun', when I'm forced to engage because of your arbitrary reasons and your high minded decisions on how it 'should' be played, then I'm the one not enjoying myself.

But apparently, that's ok, because it's seemingly all about 'you' having fun.

did you even read the original posters scenario? the point was that he was supposed to survive so that some people can escape, that was the "theme"... having all flying units not only breaks immersion its pointless to the scenario, heck I am not sure how an all flying army would fit into that :/.... smart play is all great if you are not playing themed scenarios and just playing for kicks, I am would gladly play against an all flying unit but if he claims "oh I have to survive by turn X because X happens" I will say "Ok but I am taking an all shooting army" and then the game becomes a pointless... I am not even sure why I am arguing this, people are so bullheaded, you play whatever you want :/

Yeah, in that scenario the elf player should also be stopping the chaos guys from getting to their board edge.

Hard to stop them if you never slow them down...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In response to the last quote about me, if there is a building in the way, that limits their space to summon. If I see they are keeping a pile of models to the side to summon, I can just put down models to counter, or place reserve type units.

In order for them to go first, they have to finish deploying first, in their first turn each guy can summon max 3-4 units of skinks that have to fit within 18" of the casters.

They are not going to be able to remove me from the table turn one because they will only be slightly closeer than they would have been after the movement phase.

Too long, didn't read: that situation has almost zero chance of actually happening, and should not be an issue.

What does "forging a narrative" mean?

I have my own ideas, which do not correspond with GW's as far as I can tell.

The people who are playing AoS happily to forge a narrative, what does it mean to you?

Tell a story, play out heroic, tragic or dramatic events to create a narrative that carries on your own stories within the setting. In order for something to be heroic or captivating there needs to be a degree of risk.

What story, over what time frame, featuring what characters for what objective?

he point of the game is to play and enjoy yourself,

all subjective opinions and in no way make the game bad, they may disapprove but at a certain point it becomes a constant abuse, people have stated their opinions, time to move on

you are one of "those" type of players...

I am not even sure why I am arguing this, people are so bullheaded, you play whatever you want :/

I'm not even sure what you are arguing, for that matter. From my perspective, yesterday I see you post that AoS has the strength of allowing players to forge a narrative and that its time to move on from players wailing on each other over how they want to play, then today I read your posts about how one player's method of forging a narrative is wrong.

How about we all take your advice and move on to a new topic?