kendoka wrote:
I am all for a simple (fast) rules set - but the AoS one seems unfinished/untested (much like GW's Triumph and Treachery).

Sudden Death is boring, deciding victories on model count alone gives a massive bonus to elite (SM) forces, missile targeting (LOS through other units) needs clarification and so does movement (measure up and down if climbing walls?), no way (apart from Armour Save) to defend oneself in CC, piling in to CC weapon range results in models ending un in a pile, etc.

Also the measuring from the tip of the model combined with no facing and no part of the model being allowed to move more than the Move results in very strange movement. Such as when my Cold One Knights had enemies behind them and had to move+charge backwards into CC (attacking with the tip of their tails) in order to reach the enemy...

Needs some tweaking (and points).

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Wow. I'm actually a bit surprised so many people find the idea of a game system that requires you to behave like a five year old appealing.

Yeah we all play with toy soldiers cos we are that mature !

I recall Miss Demeanor from Magic

If you look up I explain my feelings on the matter, but on you go, much easier to believe that anyone who's troubled by this rubbish is a joyless monster than remember that not everyone in the world finds certain things as easy as you do.

Wow touchy much - kinda hard to disagree with your description of yourself after that post.............

Oooh goody, making fun of autism now. Do carry on, maybe you can get everyone guffawing with a routine about how funny it is watching wheelchair users try to negotiate stairs.

If you like - what exactly is your problem with people having fun or apparently having any kind of opinion other than what matches your own.

I typed out several snarky responses to this bait, but I've decided I'm going to actually try and make an effort to convey my view on this, even though I fully expect to be rewarded with a series of "get over it, lulz" and "lighten up broskie!" posts.

This kind of thing isn't just a bit of fun to someone like myself. It's taken twenty years for me to reach a point I can interact with people in public in a way that appears "normal" to them and to observers, and doing so requires constant effort on my part. I cannot tell when someone is annoyed, or offended, or bored by what I say or do, I have no access to the constant stream of subconscious information most people are processing during social interactions, and because of the often ridiculous social conventions people follow I have to -on top of trying to consciously analyse the other person's behaviour to try and glean their intent- carefully moderate my behaviour, as the other person will likely not actually tell me when I have annoyed, offended, or bored them, they will just assume that I know full-well what I've done and am continuing to do it because I dislike them, meaning they either leave the conversation and end up telling others that I'm an unpleasant person, or they will explode angrily, from my perspective out of nowhere, and I have no way to respond to that. I'm not fishing for sympathy here, I'm just trying to provide context so you can understand where I'm coming from.

This kind of OTT behaviour isn't something I can do in front of random strangers, or even just acquaintances, because I'm not getting any cues from them, no feedback. By requiring this kind of "acting up" in the actual rules for the game, rather than leaving humour up to spontaneity as it should be, I'm left with essentially two choices; don't play the game(since organised play with friends I know well enough to relax around is rare these days), or refuse to use that part of the rules and explain why(or else be branded a killjoy, see above replies to my initial distaste). Out of interest, have you ever seen how most people tend to react when they're told by the person they're talking to that person has some form of mental health issue or disorder? When the most common responses to the "explain why" option are going to be either mockery or profound awkwardness, you can perhaps grasp why that's an unappealing option.

For you this kind of "mandated fun" isn't a problem, because if you enjoyed that kind of humour as part of your gaming experience anyway nothing has really changed for you, or if it has changed it's not in a way that causes you any trouble. For folk like myself, or for just generally socially awkward or shy people(who, you might have noticed, are fairly prevalent in geekdom), it's a genuine impediment. Just as, for you, lack of a ramp into a building causes no problems, but is a fairly big deal for a wheelchair user.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Did Gamesworkshop just jump the shark?

They've nuked the fridge, they've jumped the shark.

I said this in another thread- I'd call GW a Mickey Mouse operation, but that would be an insult to cartoon mice everywhere.

 Yodhrin wrote:

Spoiler:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Wow. I'm actually a bit surprised so many people find the idea of a game system that requires you to behave like a five year old appealing.

Yeah we all play with toy soldiers cos we are that mature !

I recall Miss Demeanor from Magic

If you look up I explain my feelings on the matter, but on you go, much easier to believe that anyone who's troubled by this rubbish is a joyless monster than remember that not everyone in the world finds certain things as easy as you do.

Wow touchy much - kinda hard to disagree with your description of yourself after that post.............

Oooh goody, making fun of autism now. Do carry on, maybe you can get everyone guffawing with a routine about how funny it is watching wheelchair users try to negotiate stairs.

If you like - what exactly is your problem with people having fun or apparently having any kind of opinion other than what matches your own.

I typed out several snarky responses to this bait, but I've decided I'm going to actually try and make an effort to convey my view on this, even though I fully expect to be rewarded with a series of "get over it, lulz" and "lighten up broskie!" posts.

This kind of thing isn't just a bit of fun to someone like myself. It's taken twenty years for me to reach a point I can interact with people in public in a way that appears "normal" to them and to observers, and doing so requires constant effort on my part. I cannot tell when someone is annoyed, or offended, or bored by what I say or do, I have no access to the constant stream of subconscious information most people are processing during social interactions, and because of the often ridiculous social conventions people follow I have to -on top of trying to consciously analyse the other person's behaviour to try and glean their intent- carefully moderate my behaviour, as the other person will likely not actually tell me when I have annoyed, offended, or bored them, they will just assume that I know full-well what I've done and am continuing to do it because I dislike them, meaning they either leave the conversation and end up telling others that I'm an unpleasant person, or they will explode angrily, from my perspective out of nowhere, and I have no way to respond to that. I'm not fishing for sympathy here, I'm just trying to provide context so you can understand where I'm coming from.

This kind of OTT behaviour isn't something I can do in front of random strangers, or even just acquaintances, because I'm not getting any cues from them, no feedback. By requiring this kind of "acting up" in the actual rules for the game, rather than leaving humour up to spontaneity as it should be, I'm left with essentially two choices; don't play the game(since organised play with friends I know well enough to relax around is rare these days), or refuse to use that part of the rules and explain why(or else be branded a killjoy, see above replies to my initial distaste). Out of interest, have you ever seen how most people tend to react when they're told by the person they're talking to that person has some form of mental health issue or disorder? When the most common responses to the "explain why" option are going to be either mockery or profound awkwardness, you can perhaps grasp why that's an unappealing option.

For you this kind of "mandated fun" isn't a problem, because if you enjoyed that kind of humour as part of your gaming experience anyway nothing has really changed for you, or if it has changed it's not in a way that causes you any trouble. For folk like myself, or for just generally socially awkward or shy people(who, you might have noticed, are fairly prevalent in geekdom), it's a genuine impediment. Just as, for you, lack of a ramp into a building causes no problems, but is a fairly big deal for a wheelchair user.

 Freytag93 wrote:
Don't know if this has been posted, but I've seen some discussion in the WHF threads about the use of the new names. Under faction they have kept the normal names (for now at least). But if you check under race, you see all the new names have been posted. Here's the list of the new races:
Aelf (elves)
Beastmen
Daemon
Duardin (dwarves)
Grot (goblins)
Human (former empire and brets)
Mortal (former WoC)
Mummy (Tomb Kings, specifically the actual tomb kings)
Ogor (former OK)
Orruk (orks)
Seraphon (former lizardmen)
Skaven
Skeleton (both VC skelies and TK)
Sylvaneth (tree kin from WE. Very interesting that these were split off. Maybe part of the destruction forces now?)
Troggoth (only trolls)
Vampires (just the vampires from VC)

Interestingly, I can't find the gnoblars in this list. I would have thought that they'd be in either Ogor or Grot. But they're not in either. I wonder if GW will get rid of them of it was just a formatting error.

 SJM wrote:
Right I'm very confused... take this for example -

War Boar
Some Orc Warbosses ride to battle on War Boars; these models have Move 9" instead of 5" and gain the War Boar’s Tusks attack.

So obviously it is better to be mounted on a War boar, but as I understand it, there are no points.... so if your warboss is on a war boar he is better but is the same value as the Warboss on foot? Is there a down side to being on a Warboar? Or has this just made every Orc Warboss model not on a Warboar obsolete?

yea.... im very confused. help?

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
Wow. I'm actually a bit surprised so many people find the idea of a game system that requires you to behave like a five year old appealing.

Yeah we all play with toy soldiers cos we are that mature !

I recall Miss Demeanor from Magic

If you look up I explain my feelings on the matter, but on you go, much easier to believe that anyone who's troubled by this rubbish is a joyless monster than remember that not everyone in the world finds certain things as easy as you do.

Wow touchy much - kinda hard to disagree with your description of yourself after that post.............

Oooh goody, making fun of autism now. Do carry on, maybe you can get everyone guffawing with a routine about how funny it is watching wheelchair users try to negotiate stairs.

If you like - what exactly is your problem with people having fun or apparently having any kind of opinion other than what matches your own.

I typed out several snarky responses to this bait, but I've decided I'm going to actually try and make an effort to convey my view on this, even though I fully expect to be rewarded with a series of "get over it, lulz" and "lighten up broskie!" posts.

This kind of thing isn't just a bit of fun to someone like myself. It's taken twenty years for me to reach a point I can interact with people in public in a way that appears "normal" to them and to observers, and doing so requires constant effort on my part. I cannot tell when someone is annoyed, or offended, or bored by what I say or do, I have no access to the constant stream of subconscious information most people are processing during social interactions, and because of the often ridiculous social conventions people follow I have to -on top of trying to consciously analyse the other person's behaviour to try and glean their intent- carefully moderate my behaviour, as the other person will likely not actually tell me when I have annoyed, offended, or bored them, they will just assume that I know full-well what I've done and am continuing to do it because I dislike them, meaning they either leave the conversation and end up telling others that I'm an unpleasant person, or they will explode angrily, from my perspective out of nowhere, and I have no way to respond to that. I'm not fishing for sympathy here, I'm just trying to provide context so you can understand where I'm coming from.

This kind of OTT behaviour isn't something I can do in front of random strangers, or even just acquaintances, because I'm not getting any cues from them, no feedback. By requiring this kind of "acting up" in the actual rules for the game, rather than leaving humour up to spontaneity as it should be, I'm left with essentially two choices; don't play the game(since organised play with friends I know well enough to relax around is rare these days), or refuse to use that part of the rules and explain why(or else be branded a killjoy, see above replies to my initial distaste). Out of interest, have you ever seen how most people tend to react when they're told by the person they're talking to that person has some form of mental health issue or disorder? When the most common responses to the "explain why" option are going to be either mockery or profound awkwardness, you can perhaps grasp why that's an unappealing option.

For you this kind of "mandated fun" isn't a problem, because if you enjoyed that kind of humour as part of your gaming experience anyway nothing has really changed for you, or if it has changed it's not in a way that causes you any trouble. For folk like myself, or for just generally socially awkward or shy people(who, you might have noticed, are fairly prevalent in geekdom), it's a genuine impediment. Just as, for you, lack of a ramp into a building causes no problems, but is a fairly big deal for a wheelchair user.

 SJM wrote:
Right I'm very confused... take this for example -

War Boar
Some Orc Warbosses ride to battle on War Boars; these models have Move 9" instead of 5" and gain the War Boar’s Tusks attack.

So obviously it is better to be mounted on a War boar, but as I understand it, there are no points.... so if your warboss is on a war boar he is better but is the same value as the Warboss on foot? Is there a down side to being on a Warboar? Or has this just made every Orc Warboss model not on a Warboar obsolete?

yea.... im very confused. help?

 SJM wrote:
Right I'm very confused... take this for example -

War Boar
Some Orc Warbosses ride to battle on War Boars; these models have Move 9" instead of 5" and gain the War Boar’s Tusks attack.

So obviously it is better to be mounted on a War boar, but as I understand it, there are no points.... so if your warboss is on a war boar he is better but is the same value as the Warboss on foot? Is there a down side to being on a Warboar? Or has this just made every Orc Warboss model not on a Warboar obsolete?

yea.... im very confused. help?

 MangoMadness wrote:

 Talys wrote:

2. Pick models and agree on a battle that feels right to both players

I mean, I get it -- Neither will make for great tournaments. I'm not entirely convinced that they can't make for good pick-up games, because MOST people I meet randomly are actually pretty cool people, and I think I could trust myself and them to choose out a couple of reasonably equal-ish armies.

The problem with this is there is no base level for comparison. What do you say before the game? You cant say 2000 point game, how do you describe the size of battle you wish to play? Do you say 15 unit game? but do 2 dwarf hammer units = 3 units of zombies? = 1 unit of khorne cav???

One player is speaking in oranges the other in apples.

How do you compare armies? You cant

Its absolutely laughable

 Compel wrote:
I'd insert the Picard / Riker double facepalm gif here but I know you're mostly all thinking it already...

 Xyxox wrote:
I can confirm. Ronnie Renton is laughing his @$$ off.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Did Gamesworkshop just jump the shark?

They've nuked the fridge, they've jumped the shark.

I said this in another thread- I'd call GW a Mickey Mouse operation, but that would be an insult to cartoon mice everywhere.

 Fezman wrote:
If i had to sum up this release in one word, it would be "weird."

The rules that encourage amateur dramatics make it feel like a bizarre hybrid of tabletop wargame and party game...maybe I would have preferred them as an optional expansion. Personally I would prefer to avoid them, as public clowning isn't my thing. Maybe if I was among friends and the atmosphere was right, but again, it feels weird to have them there in the normal everyday rules.

And the game itself is equally strange...I still havent quite got over the idea of GW giving away free rules. I feel like there must be a catch coming, or maybe they really are just aiming to be a model company these days. However, I greatly like the idea of a game with simple core rules where your unit cards influence what can be done, with the interplay of units almost being a game in itself; it reminds me a little of stat cards in Deadzone. My main interest lies in seeing whether you can get a good fantasy skirmish campaign going. If you can't, I'll probably just get Frostgrave instead.

I just wish the rules about measuring from the model and unlimited army size weren't so open to abuse (not to mention you and your opponent's models being allowed to rampage over each other's bases!). At the very least, if the game turns out to be bad, I didn't waste money on it.