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.

Norsed wrote:
It's about how you play, not whether you win or lose.

That's extremely subjective, and it seems like you are projecting your own preferences on to other people. Please understand that if the system is balanced, you get to have your narrative game, the competitive gamers get to have their competitive game. Everyone is happy, everyone gets to have their cake and eat it too. Yayy! Gimping a system that many different types of gamers have played for several decades so that it suits your preference at the expense of everyone else's comes off as a tad selfish, imho.

Looking forward to this now!

Really hope it either gets a load of people jumping to WarmaHordes (I can get rid of my Cryx for a decent price and use the cash for AoS, and pick up some bargains for WHFB ) or captures the imagination of the community (bigger group to play with, will annoy some on here that aren't a fan of anything GW)

Win win though!

The "Warhammer Fantasy" community will probably not grow from this.

nudibranch wrote:

Norsed wrote:
It's about how you play, not whether you win or lose.

That's extremely subjective, and it seems like you are projecting your own preferences on to other people. Please understand that if the system is balanced, you get to have your narrative game, the competitive gamers get to have their competitive game. Everyone is happy, everyone gets to have their cake and eat it too. Yayy! Gimping a system that many different types of gamers have played for several decades so that it suits your preference at the expense of everyone else's comes off as a tad selfish, imho.

It is indeed extremely subjective. But my personal viewpoint is that if someone cares more about winning and losing than having a good time, or playing well then their priorities are skewed. We're playing with toy soldiers. But that's fine. They can play other people, we don't have to play each other. But that particular statement was in reference to a narrative player. If a player cares about winning then they are, by definition, not a narrative player. And that was the point I was trying to make.

However, I do think it's important to point out that points systems do not create balance. They are always off somewhere.

Winner, I get some bargains then.

But we don't know this till games are getting played, old armies are getting used.

Hello! This is my first post on dakkadakka. Best way to describe me is a non gamer. (Last was Necromunda back in the mid/late nineties) I'm dipping my toe in the oldhammer world and loving it.

This game is obviously aimed at Children. And that isn't a bad thing. Many legacy hobbies like wargaming are struggling with a shrinking and ageing audience. You must have fresh blood to survive. Look at baseball cards, comics, etc, and how they are dead or dying. You do need to appeal to that audience.

Destroying the fluff though is a silly act. Again, I can understand defending your IP and distilling it into something unique… But these are all subtle acts done over time by successful companies. Change is generally successful when done in small frequent wins - Not in big cataclysm leaps. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Big change will cause big backlash. Continuity is something that holds people in product spaces they may otherwise leave. Apples Walled garden is a great example. What GW are doing here is giving everyone a perfect jumping off point and damaging one of their key offerings.

Age of Sigmar is New Coke. It may have rigorous Product management thought behind it - But the way its introduced will cause massive backlash.

New poster, same old presumption.

Whether it's caused a backlash or not can't be judged by the foaming mouths on here.it'll be on the balance books I'm afraid.

I don't even know how to react, I'm reserving opinion until I've tried it. Regardless of the game I'm buying the box I want the models.

Goresaw wrote:
Having no point values though is an inherent statement that all models are equal. Welcome to warhammer checkers.

None of the armies in Dark Vengeance/Island of Blood had points values either. If it's a starter set, all that comes later once you've got your feet under the table.
This is you going off assumptions- not fact. We know there's more army info coming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BAN wrote:
I don't even know how to react, I'm reserving opinion until I've tried it. Regardless of the game I'm buying the box I want the models.

A sensible idea.

Norsed wrote:
It's about how you play, not whether you win or lose.

Yes of course.... but whether a game has a good system to determine who is the winner and loser directly impacts how I play, lol.

Having a rules system where you win or lose based largely on tactical ability is part of what makes a wargame fun for a lot of people. If all you care about is seeing how pretty your miniatures look lined up on the table, might as well stick to making dioramas instead of playing a game IMO.

To me, it's kind of like playing kick to kick in the backyard, sure, it can be fun, but some people actually want to play a game.

Cant compare it to DV or IoB.
These are the full rules for any other games. It is not bound to the starting set. People do not complain of the lack of balance in the box. Nobody cares.

People read the full rules and see that the most basic rules are flawed.

DV scenarios sucked monkey balls. They were barely playable and were meant to teach the basics. Full rules, as well as point values for all models were available at the same time the starter was released. This is not the case with AoS.

Barely playable to the experienced 40k gamer maybe. Not to a new kid on the block.

The sky is falling!

I wonder how some of the posters here will feel if the game comes out and it's like this:
- "play this scenario with 500 sigmapoints per player"
- "a unit of 10 sigmarines is worth 100 sigmapoints, plus 75 for every additional 10 sigmarines"

Norsed wrote:
But my personal viewpoint is that if someone cares more about winning and losing than having a good time

The idea that those things are mutually exclusive is crazy. It's through caring about whether I win or lose through which I have a good time. It doesn't mean when I lose I cry and when I win I'm a d-bag about it, but without an attempt to win or lose the game just loses all substance to me, at that point I'm just shuffling models around a table aimlessly. Sure, it's still fun to catch up with friends, but there's a plethora of ways I can catch up with friends that don't involve the tedium of playing a game with no goal.

Norsed wrote:
If a player cares about winning then they are, by definition, not a narrative player. And that was the point I was trying to make.

Why? What definition? This reeks of false dichotomy.

Vetril wrote:
I wonder how some of the posters here will feel if the game comes out and it's like this:

Probably feel that GW are a-holes for telling store owners lies about the game.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Norsed wrote:
But my personal viewpoint is that if someone cares more about winning and losing than having a good time

The idea that those things are mutually exclusive is crazy. It's through caring about whether I win or lose through which I have a good time. It doesn't mean when I lose I cry and when I win I'm a d-bag about it, but without an attempt to win or lose the game just loses all substance to me, at that point I'm just shuffling models around a table aimlessly. Sure, it's still fun to catch up with friends, but there's a plethora of ways I can catch up with friends that don't involve the tedium of playing a game with no goal.

Quoted for truth.

I get that some people don't care about winning or losing. But some people do. And that's okay. That doesn't make them douchebags or they have their priorities "wrong", for some reason.

Don't correct your double posts. The system fixes it automatically.

 WarMill wrote:
Been following this thread with interest and since everyone else is piling in, figured I might as well .

I think this game is exactly what I want and I'll explain why, but whether I'd be able to find anyone else to play it with me remains to be seen.
[...]
So what's the conclusion if you bothered reading all that? AoS may just be the casual relaxing hobby I've been missing, and if it's an absolute anathema to competitive players that's ok by me because I'm not one of them. Sweet models, easy access, no hefty rules to lug about, just rock up and plonk some models down. That'll do nicely.

Now feel free to call me a casual scrub idiot

I'm the same! Ultra casual player, with not much time for massive complicated battles or money for large 200+ model armies. AoS looks built for me. Just paint up my models, pop them in a case and take them down for a fun game in the afternoon. This game caters nicely to our crowd.

Although I think they should release a "Warhammer Legacy" rulebook as a final hurrah for WHFB that integrates the full End Times rules (without needing to buy all 5 books) as an optional mode of play for those who want to play the hardcore game. If they kept the square bases and round bases in each product, and keep the rulebook on the shelf, WHFB gamers can continue playing forever.

nudibranch wrote:

Norsed wrote:
If a player cares about winning then they are, by definition, not a narrative player. And that was the point I was trying to make.

Why? What definition? This reeks of false dichotomy.

How would you define a narrative player then?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Norsed wrote:
But my personal viewpoint is that if someone cares more about winning and losing than having a good time

The idea that those things are mutually exclusive is crazy. It's through caring about whether I win or lose through which I have a good time. It doesn't mean when I lose I cry and when I win I'm a d-bag about it, but without an attempt to win or lose the game just loses all substance to me, at that point I'm just shuffling models around a table aimlessly. Sure, it's still fun to catch up with friends, but there's a plethora of ways I can catch up with friends that don't involve the tedium of playing a game with no goal.

Who said mutually exclusive? I said if someone cares more about winning or losing than they do about having a good time. Attempting to win the game is fine. But can you not see any value in playing as well as you can against the odds?

Norsed wrote:

nudibranch wrote:

Norsed wrote:
If a player cares about winning then they are, by definition, not a narrative player. And that was the point I was trying to make.

Why? What definition? This reeks of false dichotomy.

How would you define a narrative player then?

A narrative player is someone who very much just needs to play historicals since such games often have defined armies facing each other so no need for points, etc.

I agree though that this system appears, with what we have seen so far, to be aimed completely at forging that narrative that GW loves to tout so much. I can see themed scenario books coming out that play out a story; almost play your own adventure books with the following battle and story dependent upon who wins the current game. If that scenario turns out to be true then you're better off just playing a Descent II campaign in my opinion.

Norsed wrote:Who said mutually exclusive?

You did

Norsed wrote:If a player cares about winning then they are, by definition, not a narrative player. And that was the point I was trying to make.

Emphasis mine.

Double posted for some reason.

Norsed wrote:

Who said mutually exclusive? I said if someone cares more about winning or losing than they do about having a good time. Attempting to win the game is fine. But can you not see any value in playing as well as you can against the odds?

I think your definition is very subjective and limiting. As I mentioned before, historic games are very narrative in nature yet players do very much care if they win or lose the battle. What's the point in playing a game if you know that you're going to lose or win before you even begin?

 streamdragon wrote:

Norsed wrote:Who said mutually exclusive?

You did

Norsed wrote:If a player cares about winning then they are, by definition, not a narrative player. And that was the point I was trying to make.

Emphasis mine.

No. Caring about winning and being a narrative player are mutually exclusive. What the person in question actually brought up, not so much.

Norsed wrote:
Double posted for some reason.

The system auto-corrects double posts, just leave it alone next time.

 agnosto wrote:

Norsed wrote:

Who said mutually exclusive? I said if someone cares more about winning or losing than they do about having a good time. Attempting to win the game is fine. But can you not see any value in playing as well as you can against the odds?

I think your definition is very subjective and limiting. As I mentioned before, historic games are very narrative in nature yet players do very much care if they win or lose the battle. What's the point in playing a game if you know that you're going to lose or win before you even begin?

Because the end result is not the entire enjoyment of the game? Besides which, nothing is ever set in stone. Just because the game is balanced in favour of one side over the other does not necessarily mean that side will win.

Norsed wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

Norsed wrote:Who said mutually exclusive?

You did

Norsed wrote:If a player cares about winning then they are, by definition, not a narrative player. And that was the point I was trying to make.

Emphasis mine.

No. Caring about winning and being a narrative player are mutually exclusive. What you actually brought up, not so much.

Just so we're clear, I didn't bring up anything. I simply answered your question. There is nothing mutually exclusive about wanting to win a game and being a narrative player. I can show up to a game mimicking the Second Battle for Armageddon with the worst Ork list imaginable (and I do make terrible lists full of bad units that I love) and still want to win. The two things have literally nothing to do with each other.

 streamdragon wrote:

Norsed wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

Norsed wrote:Who said mutually exclusive?

You did

Norsed wrote:If a player cares about winning then they are, by definition, not a narrative player. And that was the point I was trying to make.

Emphasis mine.

No. Caring about winning and being a narrative player are mutually exclusive. What you actually brought up, not so much.

Just so we're clear, I didn't bring up anything. I simply answered your question. There is nothing mutually exclusive about wanting to win a game and being a narrative player. I can show up to a game mimicking the Second Battle for Armageddon with the worst Ork list imaginable (and I do make terrible lists full of bad units that I love) and still want to win. The two things have literally nothing to do with each other.

Personally I would disagree, I guess we both have different views on what makes a narrative player. However, the bit where mutually exclusive came up was not in reference to narrative gamers at the time.