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.

No "RuneHolySpirit"? I am very disappointed.

 Kanluwen wrote:
"Breaking the fourth wall" is when the unit itself would do something like insult the opposing player.

Just sayin'. This isn't breaking that fourth wall.

If you're here to be pedantic at least offer an alternative. Yes, you're right, "breaking the fourth wall" is usually attributed the other way round - the miniatures becoming aware of us, the players (if it were possible). I want to articulate why I don't like the "joke" rules in a better way than simply calling them silly. Do you have any suggestions? :-)

 Bottle wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
"Breaking the fourth wall" is when the unit itself would do something like insult the opposing player.

Just sayin'. This isn't breaking that fourth wall.

If you're here to be pedantic at least offer an alternative. Yes, you're right, "breaking the fourth wall" is usually attributed the other way round - the miniatures becoming aware of us, the players (if it were possible). I want to articulate why I don't like the "joke" rules in a better way than simply calling them silly. Do you have any suggestions? :-)

Why should I really bother to offer an alternative? It's not going to change your opinion or anyone else's opinion of these so-called "silly rules". At the very least I can make sure people stop whining about them "breaking the fourth wall".

Read the stupid rule. In no way, shape, or form are you required to do it. The bonus it gives as well is something that won't really have an effect on gameplay--if you choose to use it, you get to reroll To Hit rolls of 1. The Auric Runeson hits on 3+.

It's a rule that someone can take advantage of during a game when they feel like they're doing poorly without unbalancing the game in their favor. It also(shock! horror!) assumes that you are playing with people that you are comfortable enough to engage in such behavior with.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

Thebiggesthat wrote:
Yawn at the KoW talk.

This is an AoS rumour thread. Now do I have to show a pic of my non GW books figs etc before the white knight comments start?

Just wondered why saying;

"Cool, I'm buying some for my KoW army"

particularly differs from saying

"Cool, I'm buying some for my AoS army".

2 letters difference. We're all liking the same models. The thread is about the release of new models.
When I bought my first Citadel miniatures, they were manufactured for any fantasy game you were playing. Why does it bother people so much nowadays?

I don't think it's anything you said, but what's implied.

Remember the long period where KoW players were constantly criticized for playing an "inferior game"? Well, now the Sigmar players are super defensive of their thread. Some KoW posts always have to take a shot at AoS and it's faults, which admittedly you did not do, I think it's just people being defensive.

 Bottle wrote:

You're saying "should" as if it's me at fault for not getting into the spirit of these rules, but in truth I am all about having a fun thematic game and love the non-fourth wall breaking rules (like the Auric Runemaster's ability to spot Ur-gold and how that plays in the game). These rules don't do anything to enhance my experience like a good campaign map or issuing a challenge (from WHFB) might do. In fact they detract from the experience.

You are misunderstanding me. I'm saying that if you like thematic games, then something which contributes to theme should, I would assume, contribute to what you enjoy about it. I was not implying that you should feel obligated to agree, just that, to me, it seemed like a logical progression.

Lol, what is this warmachine shade for?

My point is that unpainted models on flat terrain do more to destroy the illusion of armies fighting on a battlefield than a silly rule about insulting another unit, yet one is acceptable (even expected, occasionally the standard) while the other is somehow offensive. I'm not saying that the people who pay $40 for glorified, silver pawns are playing the game wrong, just that holding silly rules to the standard of "immersion breaking" is a bit hypocritical considering how prevalent the former attitude is.

Wow, again, what's with all the passive insults? I don't feel these rules are beneath me, it's just not my kind of fun in the context of a wargame.

I did not mean to implicate you in that comment. It was a more general purpose comment, that we can't help what we like and can't change what others like, and that I would rather play with someone who is willing to have fun with the game than someone who took it too seriously. Reading the comment again, I can see how it would appear to be a veiled insult, and I assure that was just poor word choice on my part.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Thunderfrog wrote:

I don't think it's anything you said, but what's implied.

Remember the long period where KoW players were constantly criticized for playing an "inferior game"? Well, now the Sigmar players are super defensive of their thread. Some KoW posts always have to take a shot at AoS and it's faults, which admittedly you did not do, I think it's just people being defensive.

I don't care if anybody likes Age of Sigmar. It's just that KoW are starting to remind me of vegans, constantly bring up the game regardless of the discussion or appropriateness of the comment. You can almost hear their voices get a little louder when they say it: "Oh, these are nice GW dwarves. I'll use them in my KINGS OF WAR ARMY." "GW makes expensive models, that's why I quit them to start PLAYING KINGS OF WAR." "GW's financials aren't as terrible as I was expecting, but it doesn't matter because my entire group now PLAYS KINGS OF WAR." "I'm sorry your aunt died. I never got the chance to play KINGS OF WAR WITH HER." "Gun control is a complicated subject, but you know what isn't complicated? KINGS OF WAR". "Did you KINGS OF WAR about the KINGS OF WAR?"

It's the smug self-satisfaction that I think rubs me the wrong way, just like vegans and cross-fitters, hence the joke. We get it. People are butthurt about getting dumped by WHFB and feel the need to overcompensate in the promotion of their rebound girlfriend, but it's getting absurd.

Do you mind not making any sweeping statements that paint people in certain ways?! how about talking more about miniatures and less about vegans...

AGAIN - this is the "Age of Sigmar News & Rumours" thread.

ANYTHING else is going to be considered OFF TOPIC/SPAM/ETC. and will be treated accordingly.

Yeah I don't like the giant lizard thing either. Like the stunties themselves it has terrible musculature. The flame/spike things on the shoulders also look weird to me, they segment the body from the limbs too much and make it look like an action figure where the arms pivot but only around a single axis. Don't like the excessively long tongue. Other than that I guess it's ok, but they tried too hard to make it look like a child's toy.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Bottle wrote:

You're saying "should" as if it's me at fault for not getting into the spirit of these rules, but in truth I am all about having a fun thematic game and love the non-fourth wall breaking rules (like the Auric Runemaster's ability to spot Ur-gold and how that plays in the game). These rules don't do anything to enhance my experience like a good campaign map or issuing a challenge (from WHFB) might do. In fact they detract from the experience.

You are misunderstanding me. I'm saying that if you like thematic games, then something which contributes to theme should, I would assume, contribute to what you enjoy about it. I was not implying that you should feel obligated to agree, just that, to me, it seemed like a logical progression.

I'm going to have to agree with Bottle on that one. There's thematic rules that stay within the game and these ones are rules that break jarringly from the game, breaking the 4th wall (just to piss off Kan ). You can like one without following your logical progression of liking the other.

Your two categories of rules (thematic and mechanical) are very broad, broad enough to have sub categories that individuals may like or dislike.

I'd go one step further and say thematic rules don't have to be at the expense of mechanical rules at all. I like a game that is mechanically sound, but that doesn't mean I don't like thematic rules, I did collect both Orcs and Orks after all

 Sqorgar wrote:
EDIT: Games should be fun. I've always liked the silly rules and I'm glad to see them return.

This is to fun what pieces of flair are to expressing yourself.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'm going to have to agree with Bottle on that one. There's thematic rules that stay within the game and these ones are rules that break jarringly from the game, breaking the 4th wall (just to piss off Kan ). You can like one without following your logical progression of liking the other.

I'm not saying you have to like them. I just thought that the thematic approach of insulting other units to make them run away is not far removed from a special ability death stare that lowers the bravery of other units. The only difference - and I mean, the ONLY difference - is the one requires a little bit of roleplaying on the part of the player while the other simply exists. I have trouble understanding why involving the player in such a way would be such a major deal breaker for a lot of players. There's obviously some sort of line between player and game that these rules cross, but for the life of me, I can't figure out what it is.

I mean, you guys would be fine with the rules if it was mechanically identical, but didn't involve the player's involvement, right? Like, if you didn't have to come up with an insult, but you still got the +1 to bravery rolls. So, the unforgivable crime being committed here isn't even something that is quantified by the game rules themselves.

And it's not fourth wall breaking. That doesn't work in a board game where almost every mechanic is self aware - you think armies just waited their turn to charge the enemy? A better term is immersion breaking. Except I don't understand that either, since coming up with the insult that a model yells, getting to shout it and hear it and experience something which is only mechanically hinted at - that's MORE immersive, not less. Certainly not less than immersive than rolling three score dice a half dozen times. AoS obviously wants to blur the lines between miniature game and role playing game, and I just don't see what contract is being broken by that.

Your two categories of rules (thematic and mechanical) are very broad, broad enough to have sub categories that individuals may like or dislike.

Well obviously. Such a simple categorization could never hope to cover such a broad spectrum of things. It is more intended to contrast the different goals between them. Thematic rules exist to model character, while mechanical rules seek to simulate interaction within a complex system. Thematic rules and Mechanical rules can very much be at odds - they often are, but not always - as what is best for the character of a unit may not mesh well with what is best for the system - thematic rules aren't fair, predictable, or balanced because they are innately seeking to model something which can not be fair, predictable, or balanced. Having a unit that is afraid of chickens is thematic, but impairs the carefully crafted (and predictable) balance of the game. Have 1,500 pt armies fight against each other is a mechanic that intends to create balance, but has no thematic purpose at all, as armies are rarely balanced, if ever.

With these silly rules, I think we are seeing the exact same juxtaposition, but I think it is happening slightly higher up. Rather than being quantified by the rules themselves, they instead exist in the area between the rules and the player. Some invisible line has been crossed and some players feel that these silly rules, which works towards this particular style of game, makes it impossible to have another, different style of game. While they may be okay with some players using the silly rules as options, they feel that it codifies that particular style of game in such a way that they can not have the other style of game.

I was reading another, different article by the designer of the Imperial Settlers board game, questioning what kind of things should be put in the rulebook - should they codify player behavior in the rules themselves? For instance, he asks whether the rulebook for Mall of Horror should point out that you need to betray your friends. "Treason" is in the spirit of the game, not the rules. And that may be what these silly AoS rules are all about. They are trying to codify the spirit of the game, not just the mechanical interaction between game pieces.

To all the people who complain about the silly rules in AoS, how many games have you actually played that used them?

Agreed, as usual they're doubling down on a strategy despite the response. I think any hope most people had of the game turning a corner with the dwarf release have been dashed...

If the models were better, it could be something to overlook (and use them in any fantasy system you like). But with such a lack of posing options, even fielding a small force of these will look extremely repetitive quickly.

Duplicate sculpts are one of my least favorite things (I do everything I can to avoid it with Privateer Press models, too) as it really breaks the immersion of the game.

I was going to use one of the new dwarves as a character for ym D&D campaign - but after seeing them, I'll just use heroforge and make my own or use the berserker from avatars of war.

It's actually kind of sad how bad some of the sculpts are.

 Sqorgar wrote:

To all the people who complain about the silly rules in AoS, how many games have you actually played that used them?

Quite a few now. My pet hate is the grail knight "For ze lady!" as it quickly becomes a taunt to signal a block of Knights of the Realm proxying as Grail Knights are going to obliterate which ever unit they touch.

The one I find most immersion breaking through is the staring contest I have to have with a night goblin opponent for a formation bonus of theirs.

I take Kan's advice and don't use them myself. But I am sad to see them continue with the Fyreslayers here. As RiTides says, they should have listened to the largely negative reception they recieved (not just on Dakka, my local GW was the same).

I wouldn't liken these to Roleplaying rules either because they would seem just as out of place and immersion breaking in a tabletop roleplaying game like D&D:

"You enter the Dragon's lair and feel it's piercing gaze through the gloom..."

*The DM stares you in the eye.*

"Um, what are you doing?"

"I am the dragon and this is its piercing gaze. You looked away and so now have disadvantage on all rolls against it."

:/

No fan of the funny rules myself. What I find a shame when I see them is the missed opportunity for a better rule. I love seeing unique abilities on a war scroll and would rather that real estate taken up by something more within the game world. However, I don't think they're a big deal if sparse and largely ignorable, and I think the models in this army are great, especially when seen on video.

Edit: There's got to be like one or two guys in GW who like these funny rules and keep pushing them, because I have to imagine 90% of everyone, GW staff included, aren't a fan.

 Ghaz wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
Man that (saddle / howdah?) looks awkward...!

Without it, he'd have to be doing the splits in order to ride Would that look better?

I think he'd look better standing on the thing's back, like Fremen on a sandworm. Give him a couple of hooks to hang on and steer with, Bob's your uncle.

coldgaming wrote:
No fan of the funny rules myself. What I find a shame when I see them is the missed opportunity for a better rule.

This. So much.

There's a difference between a "funny" funny rule and a "stupid" funny rule.

Take Konrad's "one bat short of a belfry": his lunacy provides a perfect justification for an exotic, unique special rule... not one that involves you talking to the bloody miniature. It can be fluffy, and not stupid.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

coldgaming wrote:

However, I do have to say I was saddened to see a "funny" rule for one of them. It isn't too bad, but I hoped they would not return with the new races. Ah well.
.

Do tell, or link to them. Some of us don't have a privacyinvasionbook account.

I'm intrigued about the inclusion of "funny" rules for the newer armies. That right there is a very curious development.

Auric Runeson's "Explosive Rage" - pick a visible unit to the Runeson to be the target of his wrath. Re-roll hit rolls of 1 against that unit. If a battleshock test is made against that unit before your next hero phase, you can add 1 to the result if you deliver a "suitably characterful insult or furious put down" aimed at the unit.

EDIT: Games should be fun. I've always liked the silly rules and I'm glad to see them return.

Mandatory fun isn't fun though. If both players are the sort of folk who're into banter, you get a bit of banter based on what happens in that particular game, and that's fun. Having a section in the rules with "FUN MODE ENGAGED: MANDATORY INSULT ACTIVATED, I GAIN +1 DICE ROLLS. FUN COMPLETE" isn't just really forced, like bad standup, it's gakky for players who're not into banter.

If you need the rules of the game to spoonfeed you "humour", you need to find new folk to play with.

 Yodhrin wrote:
If you need the rules of the game to spoonfeed you "humour", you need to find new folk to play with.

Indeed. There was no real shortage of banter before these rules were around. I'd often walk in on a game and hear one of the players talking like an Orc People who like the silliness don't need a rule to tell them they are allowed to be silly.

It's easy to avoid these rules by refusing to play them.

Back on topic, the Dwarf's salamander saddle doesn't seem to know if it is meant to be a saddle or a howdah and falls into an unfortunate compromise between them. Not one of GW's better results, I feel. It should have been either more mechanically realistic or more outrageously over the top.

I managed to grab some close-up snaps of some of the models - I think these have all been seen before, but;





Got some more piccies, but they are all models you have seen, right here: https://ttgamingdiary.wordpress.com/2016/01/12/fyreslayer-peek/

These salamanders are awesome. I really like the "magma dragon" paint scheme.

I think I will try to remove the hair from the helms. It looks like decoration to me. Maybe replacing it by flames, by using some green stuff?

About the debate on the rules, you should open a new thread in the AoS sub-forum. It's made for that.

As usual, the giant monster is pretty cool. Not so sure about the dwarves, but it'd make for a good dragon.

 Bottle wrote:
Also sad to see the joke/4th wall breaking rules continue.

There is one bright side. At least no-one can now argue they were strictly a ploy by GW to invalidate existing collections anymore though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

coldgaming wrote:

Edit: My one lingering question though, is who are the blacksmiths and the grim wrath berserkers? They're listed in the lodge chart but not seemingly released yet. Wonder if it will be a third week of Fyreslayers, but strikes me a bit weird to come after the battle tome and not be seen in any of the pictures yet.

Battlesmith will be the BSB guy that was very first leaked and the Grimwrath Bezerker will be the guy with the twin headed axe is my guess :-)

And they must be in a third week of releases.

Not necessarily, provides room to add in future.
There are 4 disciplines of Stormcast referred to in the Battletome that we've not even seen artwork for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Zognob Gorgoff wrote:
Do you mind not making any sweeping statements that paint people in certain ways?! how about talking more about miniatures and less about vegans...

As a member of one of the maligned groups, I see enough of the "Yes, but I haven't told you about X for at least 5 minutes!" within it in others to find the humour in the parallel.

As for silly rules - my regular opponent used longbeards, so our group now polices the grumbling rule. Has to be valid, can't use the same grumble twice, etc. Works both ways...

Thanks for the pics, MongooseMatt! The heroes look quite good, I might even pick up the (Runemaster?) myself.

"We just took all their clothes off and added fire everywhere, aren't we creative?"

No... just... no.

 Melissia wrote:
"We just took all their clothes off and added fire everywhere, aren't we creative?"

No... just... no.

Slayers were never big on clothes ?

I still think they should have put flaming brands in their helmets instead of 1980s punk mohawks.

Auric Runeson's "Explosive Rage" - pick a visible unit to the Runeson to be the target of his wrath. Re-roll hit rolls of 1 against that unit. If a battleshock test is made against that unit before your next hero phase, you can add 1 to the result if you deliver a "suitably characterful insult or furious put down" aimed at the unit.

Oh goody. Cue dorks spamming the "Your mother was a hamster" routine and then arguing how it's still as funny now as it was the last 30 times they did it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's easy to avoid these rules by refusing to play them.

Back on topic...

It is on topic, we're discussing the rules of a new AoS release. And that response to criticisms of the silly rules is a nonsense - you can refuse to play *any* part of *any* ruleset, that doesn't mean the stupidity isn't part of that ruleset, and by that virtue will be considered the default. Considering AoS is already a game that requires you to convene the bloody UN to mediate what parts of the shoddy core rules you're going to use, ignore, or houserule up the backside to make functional, adding yet another point of contention that people have to resolve before they can get on with having a game is hilariously inept design.

Also, there's an even easier way to avoid these rules; don't play AoS, which seems to be a fairly popular option, although probably not the one GW or people who like AoS and want it to stick around would favour.

The closer I look at the Magmadroth, the more i like it. I love how the fin and spikes are wavey, giving them a flaming feel. The paint job make a huge impact there. I think they made a mistake painting the nostrils brighter than the eyes, as I initially took them as such. I'm a huge, huge fan of Monster Hunter, and I think this dude craps all over the Agnaktor, the lava dragon from MH3U. In fact, everything about the Magmadroth, including its name, screams Monster Hunter - and that's a good thing in my eyes.