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.

Deadnight wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
If people think this is a "board game" they should be corrected and not catered to. Wargaming is not a board game, and it shouldn't even try to cater to the simpler minded crowd.

If people want to learn a wargame, they should learn a wargame and not some watered down version of a wargame.

So let them eat cake?

Why shouldn't they be catered to? If there is an audience, there is space for a product/game.

Speaking of board games, Space hulk and hero quest verged perilously close to being 'board games'. And they were bloody good fun. If anything, they can act as a gateway game.

You might not intend it grey, but that post of yours comes across as extremely condasdcending, unwelcoming, snobbish and elitist. You're better than that.

You are correct. It was unintended.

I'm just super salty about the AoS rules. Anyone who likes them should feel ashamed. I could have made better rules when I was 5.

Maybe not as dramatically as the fantasy-AoS transition. But I think you can already see 40K starting to hop in the direction that AoS took a flying leap to land at. Formations that make points less meaningful by giving you a pile of free stuff, more and more randomness, and less and less attention paid to balance on an assumption that the players will filter out the broken stuff through social contracts / shaming.

I heard it rumored GW will bring 30k into the fold with AoS rules. Primarchs fit the AoS bill, and they don't have to touch their cash cow 40k.

Also, I see they have some HH marines going plastic...

EDIT: after reading the thread - I am late to the party. Sorry!

I just hope that sigmarine statue isn't a bad omen of things to come.

Deadnight wrote:


Thing is, you can do this with well designed, well balanced systems but there is far less impetus and requirement to do so. There is less of an onus on you to 'create' and 'take control'. And it's far easier having an ultimate authority (ie iron clad rules etc) that simply tells you precisely how to behave and play. It takes your responsibilities as a player out if your hands. In ways, this is necessary. It's a good thing to have a precisely defined common ground.
Games like aos require/force the players to step up and take the reins of their games. Otherwise it simply will not work. Some people like being in control of their gaming. This is not a bad thing.

The problem is that you seem to completely miss the point that a game does not have to be a poorly written as AoS for players to take control of their gaming. Anyone who wants to can take a game like Flames of War and make it whatever they want to make it and house rule it until it is completely unrecognizable from the RAW. The difference is that the game is well written enough on its own that they don't NEED to do that if they don't want to. The root problem with AoS is that whether a player wants to take full control of the game and make it something they specifically want or not they have to do it anyway. That is where you argument falls down. Yeah AoS appeals specifically to a player who wants to do that with the game and make it their own, but it does not appeal to players who don't want to be forced to do that just to make the game playable.

To be fair, No I do not believe that the 40k rules as they currently stand do this much better than AoS, but they are a lot closer. It is easy to just nix the insane freebie units in detachments in one's group.

Exalted for truth.

If GW would AoS 40k, i would find that quite the horrible scenario i think.

And i hope that it does not happen because 40k still does quite allright; it is still the number 1 best selling wargame.
And X-Wing and Armada (2 and 3 on the list) do well at the moment (i play X-Wing myself), but it remains to be seen if those games still exist and, more importantly, will sell after a couple of years after introduction (i doubt it).

AoS as is, is not a game i will play again. Tried it, did not like it in this form.
Simple rules are only a good choice if the game also still has depth (like Epic, Warmaster, Blood Bowl, ...).
AoS even has a few mechanics that could go toward mechanics in Epic or Warmaster, but it still would need at least 1 page of extra rules to get it right and make the game interesting for me.

I am a player that wants a tactical challenge and i do not have any problems with more complex and bigger rulesets.

If 40k becomes a game where every unit does about the same like AoS, the best case would be that 40k would become like Epic and i already have (lots of) Epic, so 40k would become irrelevant.

I play WHFB since the time of 3rd/4th edition, have lots of armies and i liked the game (allthough never my favourite one) and 8th actually was my favourite edition except for the 6th spells. But we lost too many players.
I tried AoS and it's not for me. I hope it will become something i can play, otherwise we will stick to 8th edition.
I might buy a few miniatures i like, but that's it.

If the same thing happens to 40k, that would more or less mean the same.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 clamclaw wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
... and it shouldn't even try to cater to the simpler minded crowd.

There it is, thats the stuff! Alright, that'll do for me. Thanks for the laugh.

My point is that Wargaming isn't a board game. Why would it try to cater to the board game crowd?

I wouldn't go out and call any of the GW systems real "wargames" either. They're a bit more advanced beer & pretzel games. Fun, rather easy to learn, a bit costly, but far away from any true and realistic tabletop wargame.

Overall, AoS seems to have a decent impact on WHF miniatures. In the past 2-3 years it was dead in the store I usually play in. Now you can at least spot a few players sporting fantasy miniatures.

I can only cross my fingers they do! The fact that 40k is based on a fantasy statline (notice how WS, S, I, A are purely for melee?) that is now (thankfully!) obsolete with Age of Sigmar keeps me hoping that 40k will get the same fresh, new, free rules experience that Warhammer did.
Honestly at this point I think GW needs to do something drastic (like AoS) instead of just churning out more and more editions with the same messy core mechanics. They've financially been getting hurt for a while and crushed in the realm of public opinion by anyone who has ever played any other tabletop game.

 bosky wrote:
I can only cross my fingers they do! The fact that 40k is based on a fantasy statline (notice how WS, S, I, A are purely for melee?) that is now (thankfully!) obsolete with Age of Sigmar keeps me hoping that 40k will get the same fresh, new, free rules experience that Warhammer did.
Honestly at this point I think GW needs to do something drastic (like AoS) instead of just churning out more and more editions with the same messy core mechanics. They've financially been getting hurt for a while and crushed in the realm of public opinion by anyone who has ever played any other tabletop game.

They can do something drastic without pushing out an incomplete mess of a game.

Free rules are welcome.

Incomplete, no balance mechanisms rules are not.

 Blacksails wrote:
They can do something drastic without pushing out an incomplete mess of a game.

Free rules are welcome.

Incomplete, no balance mechanisms rules are not.

People are comparing it to an 8th edition game with years of development and tuning. I think it should more fairly be compared to the first edition of Warhammer, or better yet Rogue Trader (haha some classic stuff in there). It'll grow, be edited and updated, and improve with time. GW has never been a solid rule development company, but at least they're trying something new.

 Skriker wrote:

The problem is that you seem to completely miss the point that a game does not have to be a poorly written as AoS for players to take control of their gaming. Anyone who wants to can take a game like Flames of War and make it whatever they want to make it and house rule it until it is completely unrecognizable from the RAW. The difference is that the game is well written enough on its own that they don't NEED to do that if they don't want to. The root problem with AoS is that whether a player wants to take full control of the game and make it something they specifically want or not they have to do it anyway. That is where you argument falls down. Yeah AoS appeals specifically to a player who wants to do that with the game and make it their own, but it does not appeal to players who don't want to be forced to do that just to make the game playable.

I agree. Anyone can tweak any game. And yes, Aos requires that tweak. but You are also incorrect to an extent. It's not a 'problem'. It's a 'choice'. It's a choice by gw to design a game like this. (Cynically, you can also argue it also suits a company that wants to make a minimum effort investment). And that choice is neither wrong, not right. Just as pp chose to 'focus on the competitive gaming' aspect so prominent in warmachine - it attracts so many, it drives plenty away. In a similar vein, pp chose a certain set of aesthetics (ie big shoulder pads, and a cartoony world of Warcraft-ish over the top look) that attracts many. And drives many away as well. The choice to design something a certain way is just that: a choice. This is not wrong. It is no 'a problem'. A company is not required to produce a game that appeals to everyone. Thst thry don't is not 'a problem'.

Yes, you can make a 'lowest common denominator' type product with broad appeal. And you can also create a niche product with limited appeal for, shall we say, more 'refined', or 'specific' tastes. Or 'targeted' tastes. And simply put, the product they designed (ie Aos) is designed for them, not for you or even me. And that's ok. You and I call it a shallow game. It is. But bear in mind our perspective, and our bias. As wargamers, we are on the 'hardcore' side of it. We've played enough, and we've dived deep enough into it thst we know we want a deeper experience. We want deep, and subtle strategies, and clever, nuanced tactics. We want a 'clever' and intricate game. We are not wrong in wanting this. But we are at the deeper end of the pool. We are not representative of everyone, whether we talk about 'wargamers' and then we have the non wargamers who are potential players that outnumber us many, many times over. Plenty wargamers want the 'shallow dip'. Heck. Plenty non-wargamers don't want to dive into the deep end with us, and are happy to wade in the shallows. I'm sure plenty dads who enjoy the deep end probably have eight year old kids they want to teach. Are thry gonna chuck em in the deep end, or take them to the paddling pool? Aos tries to be their game. It's a shallow experience, but it's not wrong for being a shallow experience. We just have experienced enough that we want more. Just like Saturday morning cartoons. We loved them when we were kids, but if you go back now, and watch the cartoons you remember so fondly, you will quickly realise they are generally terrible and really shallow. But it's not meant for us, now.

To get back to your point, gw seemingly doesn't want to create a game that appeals to both sets of players. Or all players. Or to have a game that can work for both casual and competitive players. Maybe they think they can't do such a game? Maybe they think it's far more trouble than it's worth. So theyre appealing to a subset of players that want to be in the driving seat, and not the others? thats not necessarily a bad thing. Or a problem.It's a 'thing' but it's not a bad thing. Kind of like how warmachine appeals to some, and drives away as many. Gw are simpky focusing on a certain target audience. It may very well crash and burn too with this focus. It's a choice. Now whether the target audience exists, or whether it's big enough to support this is another question.

You talked about tweaking flames of war - that's precisely what we do with It.

And for what it's worth, I don't miss the point. If you want me to say it, I'll say it. Aos is a terrible game. See? As you say, it's 'poorly written'. I'll go one further - it's a terrible, boring, lazy and uninspired game that Is a complete and utter waste of potential. Thing is, I'm rather ambivalent to it. I never had anything tied up in warhammer fantasy. Never played it, never liked it, never cared to play it. So for me, I have no dog in the fight and no emotional baggage - I'm certain someone who'se played for years and has a dozen armies will feel quite different. To me, at the end of the day, aos really isnt all that interesting.

Aos doesn't bother me for the free-form, open ended army selection aspect, in fact, I am rather sympathetic to that angle. I play those types of games. Thryre fun. Where aos falls down, and where I lose any and all interest (aside from a model line I dislike...) is that the rules set is uninspired, and uninteresting. For me, infinity is the single most beautiful and sublime wargaming rules set out there. Technical, but functional, and in so many ways, simply inspired. Roll to hit, plus or minus modifiers. Roll to save against the power of the weapon, plus or minus modifiers. Reactions (ie it's always your turn)? Even with nothing else, infinity would have grabbed me for the sheer beauty of its game mechanics. Aos could have been saved by similarly clever mechanics. Even a four page set of rules can be interesting. They're not.

Edited for clarity.

I just started a 40k army so I really hope not.

I hope note. Dumbed down rules, straight up stupid rules (if it's night time get +1, haha so funny), and mass destruction of fluff. If GW were to "AoS" 40k, it would take at least 5 years of a falling sales, much like the situation fantasy was in.