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.

 prowla wrote:

Norsed wrote:
I'd also like to point out that if you read the warscrolls they obviously expect people to still be playing games set in the World That Was with them. Not that you need some dude in a suit to tell you it's okay to do that, but just so you know it's official - you can still set your games in the world we know and love, in all it's derivative glory.

A quote from the beginning of every war scroll, for clarity:

"The warscrolls in this compendium allow you to use your Citadel Miniatures collection in fantastical battle, whether telling epic stories set during the Age of Sigmar, or recreating the wars of the world-that-was."

Well, technically, GW does not mention 'playing a game' anywhere. It's apparently all about 'playing out stories' now. The word 'game' doesn't seem to exist in any of the materials - not even in the newsletter:

"The Warhammer Age of Sigmar starter set tells the first chapter of this war against Chaos and is bursting with extraordinary new Citadel Miniatures, epic new stories and a brand new game."

"Yes, these are the rules for playing games of Warhammer Age of Sigmar - presented for the first time here!"

But playing out stories is fine too.

Edit: these are just 2 examples of many. I couldn't be bothered to write anymore because they're everywhere, including in the rules.

 Rayvon wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A few weeks ago, Yakface and Legoburner were getting stick for trying to make the rules of Maelstrom's edge as balanced and as tactically challenging as possible.

A few weeks later, GW dump this ruleset on people, and for some people, its sunshine and rainbows.

It's a funny old world.

Turns out, not everyone wanted balanced and as tactically challenging I guess.

Or some people drink kool aid like it's mother's milk.

For me, my thoughts on balance is that most point systems benefit loop holes and beating the system, leading to min maxing. Balance does not need to be 50/50 for a game to be fun.

My favorite GW game is Necromunda.

Everyone starts out on an even playing field (not taking into account the inherent imbalances between the House Gangs and Outlanders), but after even just 1 campaign game that 50/50 balance is lost.

From there on out the odds will always be stacked in the favour of one gang over the other. But you know what? It doesn't matter. Necromunda is still the most fun game I have ever played. It's fun to battle against the odds to be honest.

For me, with 8th WHFB if you built an unkillable army it was like "great, you beat the system and created a strong army". It might be fun in a super competitive environment, but if you then went and stomped all over a weaker army I doubt it was fun at all.

Now with AoS anyone with 2 brain cells can make an unkillable combo and that means there's no satisfaction from doing so anymore.

People can play weak units now, but play more of them. People can give themselves handicaps if they know they usually beat that opponent. Yes, all this could have been done in 8th, but it is much easier now.

Lastly, the freedom to create ANY army is truly inspiring to me. I love that the same game caters for a small band of heroes, or a couple of monsters or a blob of rank-n-file.

Lastly lastly, the rules are really fun. The games are fun and fast. Terrain is so much better now you no longer have to play the game on an empty field, in fact playing in a ruined city or through some rocky crags is much more fun.

I had many hesitations too, but after playing AoS I can see it will be a game I will absolutely love.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 Rayvon wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A few weeks ago, Yakface and Legoburner were getting stick for trying to make the rules of Maelstrom's edge as balanced and as tactically challenging as possible.

A few weeks later, GW dump this ruleset on people, and for some people, its sunshine and rainbows.

It's a funny old world.

Turns out, not everyone wanted balanced and as tactically challenging I guess.

Or some people drink kool aid like it's mother's milk.

For sure, although there's no need to be so insulting, I think there is plenty of room out there in the gaming world for all types of games.

I also sympathise with you being upset because you do not like the rules, quite a few chaps I have spoken too seem a bit upset about it, but then again that is often the effect change has on some people, especially with things they hold dear.

I think GW will do well introducing new players to the games with this rules set, I will stick to playing the games I already play but I might be tempted to use the AoS rules to introduce younger players to wargaming at some point.

 Bolognesus wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Norsed wrote:
Games that get used in tournaments tend to have a highly competitive element leak into them over time until the tournament mindset dominates the game. Don't know why, just seems to happen.

I've played in one tournament in my whole life. Waste of a day. I grew out of competitive gaming years ago. I prefer narrative driven games, and spend more time playing the 40K RPG's than 40K proper.

And I want a balanced game with a tight unambiguous rule set because such a thing benefits everyone.

Benefits fluff bunnies most of all, if anything. Competitive players can just ignore 'bad' units and play with a (competitive) subset of units. The rest benefits greatly from not getting penalized for taking what looks good rather than that which gives the most bang for buck.

I'd just love someone who owns a lot of greater daemons, dragons, warmachines and multiple Nagash write the extensive "coalition of the mighty" fluff then pack it all and take a GW shops around the world tour presenting that simple fact to people thinking they were given a narrative rulesets and not a wet dream for that mythical waac douche who loves to see you tabled without any effort.

It's just a lazy, badly written unbalanced simpleton thrown in by a by a boorish and backwards company.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 Bolognesus wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Norsed wrote:
Games that get used in tournaments tend to have a highly competitive element leak into them over time until the tournament mindset dominates the game. Don't know why, just seems to happen.

I've played in one tournament in my whole life. Waste of a day. I grew out of competitive gaming years ago. I prefer narrative driven games, and spend more time playing the 40K RPG's than 40K proper.

And I want a balanced game with a tight unambiguous rule set because such a thing benefits everyone.

Benefits fluff bunnies most of all, if anything. Competitive players can just ignore 'bad' units and play with a (competitive) subset of units. The rest benefits greatly from not getting penalized for taking what looks good rather than that which gives the most bang for buck.

I'd just love someone who owns a lot of greater daemons, dragons, warmachines and multiple Nagash write the extensive "coalition of the mighty" fluff then pack it all and take a GW shops around the world tour presenting that simple fact to people thinking they were given a narrative rulesets and not a wet dream for that mythical waac douche who loves to see you tabled without any effort.

It's just a lazy, badly written unbalanced simpleton thrown in by a by a boorish and backwards company.

And I'm sure that guy will have lots of fun. And I'm sure lots of people will be dying to play him...

Well Here's two problems solved:

We can measure from the bases saying "no part of the base can move further than the move allowance" ie: rotating bases gives no advantage.

You get the advantage from the "silly antics" rules without performing the antics.

Now if two people can produce armies that don't result in a one sided battle, we have a playable game.

It will take you dozends of games to figure out a truely balanced game.
And if you change any unit, you will probably arrive at a new imbalanced situation.

 Kavish wrote:
Well Here's two problems solved:

We can measure from the bases saying "no part of the base can move further than the move allowance" ie: rotating bases gives no advantage.

You get the advantage from the "silly antics" rules without performing the antics.

Now if two people can produce armies that don't result in a one sided battle, we have a playable game.

If you don't want to do the silly antics, just don't do the silly antics. The advantage really won't make a huge difference to you.

Edit: measuring from the base sounds like a good idea though. I need to give it more of a try to see whether we're missing something by not measuring from the figure.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

RoninXiC wrote:
It will take you dozends of games to figure out a truely balanced game.
And if you change any unit, you will probably arrive at a new imbalanced situation.

You won't ever achieve a perfectly balanced game. You weren't able to achieve that with points systems either. If you don't like it, make some balance yourself or play something else. GW doesn't care.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, not being able to melee attack a phoenix/whatever flying thing because of measuring by figure seems like a non-problem to me. They can't melee back either. So they need shooting down. Because they're in the air, where your pointy things can't reach them. Some of the flyers have a special rule where they can swoop to attack, which allows measuring from a different point, which applies to people attacking them too. So it seems fine to me.

People keep saying the silly rules are relegated to the legacy armies, but how can anyone prove that? The only new AOS armies to come out are the super-serious Sigmarines, blessed by their God-King Sigmar, and the bloody Khorne bloodsecrators (a joke of a name in and of itself), is there any evidence that the antics won't pop up in future armies? And if not, then why do it with the old armies? So you'll be so sick of hearing people scream and act like goats that you'll just beg them buy a new army?

I'm also concerned about the scale of the new miniatures, particularly were I interested in building something from the old WHFB stuff now. The Sigmarines are obviously big, but are any of the Chaos humans in the same scale as WHFB? Or is this another situation where old models will look out of place in short order?

 Rayvon wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 Rayvon wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A few weeks ago, Yakface and Legoburner were getting stick for trying to make the rules of Maelstrom's edge as balanced and as tactically challenging as possible.

A few weeks later, GW dump this ruleset on people, and for some people, its sunshine and rainbows.

It's a funny old world.

Turns out, not everyone wanted balanced and as tactically challenging I guess.

Or some people drink kool aid like it's mother's milk.

For sure, although there's no need to be so insulting, I think there is plenty of room out there in the gaming world for all types of games.

I also sympathise with you being upset because you do not like the rules, quite a few chaps I have spoken too seem a bit upset about it, but then again that is often the effect change has on some people, especially with things they hold dear.

I think GW will do well introducing new players to the games with this rules set, I will stick to playing the games I already play but I might be tempted to use the AoS rules to introduce younger players to wargaming at some point.

Was it insulting? If the people who like it love how it was simplified, why didn't they try KoW before and dont want to try now. Anyway just a speculation and maybe it was insulting for someone, I dont do it on purpose though, just have an agressive posting style. I did refer to myself as drinking kool aid and loving the taste a few times so it's rather a thought shortcut.

In general, I have nothing against people who are genuinely positive here and anyone is free to enjoy even the dumbest things, I hate Call of Duty and what it represents but had fun with it (once, 10 minutes and on drugs though lol), maybe I would have silly fun with Age of Simple if I wasn't so opposed to it on fundamental level. Trying to prove that it's a good system or a positive change is an entirely different thing though and warrants a helthy quarrell not to mention borders on impossible heh.

I bash the system not the people. Invalidating things others enjoy is not nice ofc but you wouldnt voice any strongly negative opinion ever if you decided to be that nice. It's not for me heh.

Thanks for sympathy. Despite them blowing the world, killing the fluff and changing the aesthetics not to my liking, it would only take balance mechanism and square bases with a possibility to switch between a skirmish and ranked formation (with appropriate drawbacks and bonuses) for me to play it as a backup game and maybe even shut up. So little so much.

You won't ever achieve a perfectly balanced game. You weren't able to achieve that with points systems either. If you don't like it, make some balance yourself or play something else. GW doesn't care.

Exactly. You can't create a truly balanced game, but you can sure as hell try. GW just won't. Look at what Hawk Wargames did with Dropzone Commander. They have released errata for many different units in the game, changing stats and/or points costs based on what they have experienced from watching tournaments and utilizing player test groups. IF they think a unit is deficient in some way, they alter the stats. The genuinely want every unit a player can purchase to have a good place in the game. GW puts out a single rules release, and refuses to fine tune things until it comes time to make large changes with a new rules edition/army book.

I really can't imagine that if they did any playtesting whatsoever to create the Warscrolls for the older armies, that it didn't occur to them the broken games that would result from no army restrictions and from situations where two players agree to not screw each other over and just have fun- which is nowhere near a certainty when playing with relative strangers in a store or tournament. GW doesn't care.

I just really don't know where to go with AoS. I like the fluff so far, but only in a vacuum - NOT at the cost of losing all the Old World fluff. I can't believe that I, as a gamer who loves to read things like the Gotrek and Felix adventures, have reached a point where there will very likely be no more Old World novels from Black Library. God that world is sad to lose.

I also love the fantasy skirmish-level gaming that uses dispersed units instead of ranks. But other games do it better than AoS, whether GW fans want to admit it or not.

Hell, at this point, AoS and some other things have got me wanting to get back into fantasy gaming, but only partially with GW. Play AoS with Warhammer armies? Nah, I actually want to start buying Skaven (especially the Island of Blood plastics) and use them as stand-ins for Goblins in Confrontation: Age of Ragnorok. They'd be perfect, instead of crazy chaotic Goblin Samurai following the God known as Rat, you'd have actual crazy chaotic Ratmen samurai following the God known as Rat.

Norsed wrote:
You won't ever achieve a perfectly balanced game.

Drop the man made of straw. He's never done nuthin' to ya!

Or, to put it another way: We know. No one's asking for that.

Norsed wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 Bolognesus wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Norsed wrote:
Games that get used in tournaments tend to have a highly competitive element leak into them over time until the tournament mindset dominates the game. Don't know why, just seems to happen.

I've played in one tournament in my whole life. Waste of a day. I grew out of competitive gaming years ago. I prefer narrative driven games, and spend more time playing the 40K RPG's than 40K proper.

And I want a balanced game with a tight unambiguous rule set because such a thing benefits everyone.

Benefits fluff bunnies most of all, if anything. Competitive players can just ignore 'bad' units and play with a (competitive) subset of units. The rest benefits greatly from not getting penalized for taking what looks good rather than that which gives the most bang for buck.

I'd just love someone who owns a lot of greater daemons, dragons, warmachines and multiple Nagash write the extensive "coalition of the mighty" fluff then pack it all and take a GW shops around the world tour presenting that simple fact to people thinking they were given a narrative rulesets and not a wet dream for that mythical waac douche who loves to see you tabled without any effort.

It's just a lazy, badly written unbalanced simpleton thrown in by a by a boorish and backwards company.

And I'm sure that guy will have lots of fun. And I'm sure lots of people will be dying to play him...

I thought it's your and your brigade idea of a waac player, someone who puts most op stuff possible on the table tables you and loves every minute of it.

Ditching the hyperbole though, I could pretend to be a fluffiest multiples collector in the world and do nothing but finding broken combinations for every game, then just go "Jesus that was obnoxious, let's tone it down next time" and ofc find the next broken combination, or bring more or sth, sort of undercover tfg waac. If I was smart you wouldnt have a way to prove or even check that. Now I think I will do it heh.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Norsed wrote:
You won't ever achieve a perfectly balanced game.

Drop the man made of straw. He's never done nuthin' to ya!

Or, to put it another way: We know. No one's asking for that.

Guy I responded to was:

RoninXiC wrote:
It will take you dozends of games to figure out a truely balanced game. 
And if you change any unit, you will probably arrive at a new imbalanced situation.

The main thrust of my point remains whether you're looking for true balance or not: GW isn't interested. They aren't going to be interested. I'm not terribly interested either, though I can understand that for some people it's a concern. If you don't like that, there are many other things that at least try. Age of Sigmar isn't nor will it ever be for you unless you are willing to modify it yourself - which is a perfectly acceptable approach.

You can take my supposed straw man and make sweet love to it for all I care.

Norsed, couldn't you at least try posting in a few other threads, you know, to make it less obvious?

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Ditching the hyperbole though, I could pretend to be a fluffiest multiples collector in the world and do nothing but finding broken combinations for every game, then just go "Jesus that was obnoxious, let's tone it down next time" and ofc find the next broken combination, or bring more or sth, sort of undercover tfg waac. If I was smart you wouldnt have a way to prove or even check that. Now I think I will do it heh.

That would be a pretty obnoxious way to play though wouldn't it? Why would you want to treat people that way?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Norsed, couldn't you at least try posting in a few other threads, you know, to make it less obvious?

Hey, I generally despise GW and the way they've acted since they became a corporate entity. But suddenly, everything I hated about the last few editions of warhammer has suddenly gone. It's like they've been listening to my dreams or something. They've even managed to put stuff in there I didn't even know I wanted. Of course, there are a few wrinkles - this is GW after all, they always manage to find something to cock up. But on the whole I like it. I'm still sticking to rogue trader for my 40k though. I'm posting in this thread 'cos it's the one that's up on my phone and I'm posting in between bits of work. Can't be bothered to trawl through everything else plus there are a lot of people on thus thread who annoy me, which is probably not the best reason to post but there we go.

But go ahead, proclaim me a plant. Means you don't have to bother acknowledging anything I say. It'll certainly make it easier for you.

Norsed wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Ditching the hyperbole though, I could pretend to be a fluffiest multiples collector in the world and do nothing but finding broken combinations for every game, then just go "Jesus that was obnoxious, let's tone it down next time" and ofc find the next broken combination, or bring more or sth, sort of undercover tfg waac. If I was smart you wouldnt have a way to prove or even check that. Now I think I will do it heh.

That would be a pretty obnoxious way to play though wouldn't it? Why would you want to treat people that way?

Well I'm just trying multiple angles to prove that it's not a narrative ruleset and that the potential for abuse is huge and in fact higher than in a points based system.

Again it's the haac forge harder brigade that perpetuates the myth of an obnoxious waac person that takes pleasure in killing others fun. I'm just roleplaying (forging the narrative?) that.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Norsed wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Ditching the hyperbole though, I could pretend to be a fluffiest multiples collector in the world and do nothing but finding broken combinations for every game, then just go "Jesus that was obnoxious, let's tone it down next time" and ofc find the next broken combination, or bring more or sth, sort of undercover tfg waac. If I was smart you wouldnt have a way to prove or even check that. Now I think I will do it heh.

That would be a pretty obnoxious way to play though wouldn't it? Why would you want to treat people that way?

Well I'm just trying multiple angles to prove that it's not a narrative ruleset and that the potential for abuse is huge and in fact higher than in a points based system.

Again it's the haac forge harder brigade that perpetuates the myth of an obnoxious waac person that takes pleasure in killing others fun. I'm just roleplaying (forging the narrative?) that.

That's a fair enough point, though I have met a few WAAC types in my time to they're not an entire myth, even if they're not the majority.

But on the other hand, you said you thought you were going to try doing it. Which would be pretty obnoxious.

My problem is that with such a drastically different direction from the last 30 years of Warhammer, AoS almost looks like another company trying to copy the Warhammer IP, but with their own twist to make is just enough different, so they took some "planes" stuff from Magic the Gathering.

I totally liked the idea some of us wondered about when we only had the name of Age Of Sigmar to go by, where it's possibility was that it would be about a new edition of games set back in the far past of Warhammer when Sigmar first showed up, and the building of the Empire. A drastic change in regards to armies like Bretonnia, etc that would not exist yat, but still deeply a part of the Old World fluff.

Us long-term guys could feel like we were playing games to set the stage for the editions our younger selves would play. Play Nagash as one of the earlier times he showed up? Or as heroes fighting alongside Sigmar himself to pacify the great forest? It would be epic, like 40K Horus Heresy.

But then the baby went out with the bathwater.

Norsed wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Norsed wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Ditching the hyperbole though, I could pretend to be a fluffiest multiples collector in the world and do nothing but finding broken combinations for every game, then just go "Jesus that was obnoxious, let's tone it down next time" and ofc find the next broken combination, or bring more or sth, sort of undercover tfg waac. If I was smart you wouldnt have a way to prove or even check that. Now I think I will do it heh.

That would be a pretty obnoxious way to play though wouldn't it? Why would you want to treat people that way?

Well I'm just trying multiple angles to prove that it's not a narrative ruleset and that the potential for abuse is huge and in fact higher than in a points based system.

Again it's the haac forge harder brigade that perpetuates the myth of an obnoxious waac person that takes pleasure in killing others fun. I'm just roleplaying (forging the narrative?) that.

That's a fair enough point, though I have met a few WAAC types in my time to they're not an entire myth, even if they're not the majority.

But on the other hand, you said you thought you were going to try doing it. Which would be pretty obnoxious.

That was me being silly, too much Age of Sigmar lately I guess heh.

 Accolade wrote:
People keep saying the silly rules are relegated to the legacy armies, but how can anyone prove that? The only new AOS armies to come out are the super-serious Sigmarines, blessed by their God-King Sigmar, and the bloody Khorne bloodsecrators (a joke of a name in and of itself), is there any evidence that the antics won't pop up in future armies? And if not, then why do it with the old armies?

Well at the moment it's only the legacy armies that have the joke rules, and we don't have any evidence one way or another whether they'll put them in anything in the future but the models in the starter box don't seem to have them. So it's perfectly legit to say so far it's only the legacy armies and there's no reason to believe they'll put them in the new ones, since the only new army we have doesn't have them.

Norsed wrote:


Hey, I generally despise GW and the way they've acted since they became a corporate entity. But suddenly, everything I hated about the last few editions of warhammer has suddenly gone. It's like they've been listening to my dreams or something. They've even managed to put stuff in there I didn't even know I wanted. Of course, there are a few wrinkles - this is GW after all, they always manage to find something to cock up. But on the whole I like it. I'm still sticking to rogue trader for my 40k though. I'm posting in this thread 'cos it's the one that's up on my phone and I'm posting in between bits of work. Can't be bothered to trawl through everything else plus there are a lot of people on thus thread who annoy me, which is probably not the best reason to post but there we go.

But go ahead, proclaim me a plant. Means you don't have to bother acknowledging anything I say. It'll certainly make it easier for you.

You despise GW yet you only joined 4 days ago and have made over 60 posts, all in this thread, all defending gw...

No one needs to label you a plant, you made it obvious yourself!

 Bull0 wrote:

 Accolade wrote:
People keep saying the silly rules are relegated to the legacy armies, but how can anyone prove that? The only new AOS armies to come out are the super-serious Sigmarines, blessed by their God-King Sigmar, and the bloody Khorne bloodsecrators (a joke of a name in and of itself), is there any evidence that the antics won't pop up in future armies? And if not, then why do it with the old armies?

Well at the moment it's only the legacy armies that have the joke rules, and we don't have any evidence one way or another whether they'll put them in anything in the future but the models in the starter box don't seem to have them. So it's perfectly legit to say so far it's only the legacy armies and there's no reason to believe they'll put them in the new ones, since the only new army we have doesn't have them.

Which of course is no guarantee they won't at some point in the future. But I agree that it's unlikely.

 Bottle wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
About the party game approach I don't think so but I find that AOS with the following changes:

Very small armies, movement done from bases ignoring the silliness of measuring from the tip of the sword ( will avoid pile up), ignoring magical terrain and set mundane one instead... with modifiers to movement, fluffy armies, no silly humour, lots and lots of terrain...
Will prevent a bit of the mosh pits, the terrain will actually influence the strategic movement...

Will be the perfect game for me to play at home and introduce my 9 year old to wargaming.

Short 30 minute games will do fine for him.

Sounds good! Can I ask what sort of modifiers you'll place on movement?

SImply the old stuff with less penalties since units are skirmish after all but things like:

Difficult terrain - reduces 1inch to movement
Very difficult terrain - movement reduced by half
Hazardous terrain ( swamps, lava lakes, possessed jungles) reduces 1 inch to movement too... roll a d6 and on a 1 or 2 you will have a nasty consequence
Impassable terrain nothing can cross it on foot.

Terrain will also add soft and heavy cover making hide and seek more interesting too.

Unclear on consequences of these mods but I think it would make things a bit more interesting and reduce the chances of mosh pits in the middle.

So lots of terrain is the way to go specially if you boost warmachines on a hill, troops will try to avoid a charge in the open.

So the point of AoS is to help produce more sales, since fantasy was falling apart (yet if they released game info, books, and models in a balls out mentality, like with 40k, it could of turned around IMO)

So AOS is to attract new player base as well as satisfy fantasy players.

As a fantasy player who plays quite often I am not remotely interested in AoS.

As a 40k GT player, I am not remotely interested in AoS. There are plenty of 40k armies I'd rather buy.build, play. Im not interested in fantasy 40k....

I do not play warmachine or hordes, but almost all the players I see playing between 3 stores I frequently fancy, Most oft them hate GW and sing the same ole song "gw hates it customers". They now play war-machine, love it, and their mentality on GW has transferred over to their fellow WM players.

So now we have a new player base it has to attract, GL I guess... I am not saying no one is going to be playing AoS, but GW needs to seriously support this game and get it out there. Think late 90's, early 00's. Tons of GW stores, tons of independent people hired by GW to go to local stores and help promote and run demos... I do not see that happening again.

Predictions. 9th edition fantasy to come within a year.

zacharia wrote:

Norsed wrote:


Hey, I generally despise GW and the way they've acted since they became a corporate entity. But suddenly, everything I hated about the last few editions of warhammer has suddenly gone. It's like they've been listening to my dreams or something. They've even managed to put stuff in there I didn't even know I wanted. Of course, there are a few wrinkles - this is GW after all, they always manage to find something to cock up. But on the whole I like it. I'm still sticking to rogue trader for my 40k though. I'm posting in this thread 'cos it's the one that's up on my phone and I'm posting in between bits of work. Can't be bothered to trawl through everything else plus there are a lot of people on thus thread who annoy me, which is probably not the best reason to post but there we go.

But go ahead, proclaim me a plant. Means you don't have to bother acknowledging anything I say. It'll certainly make it easier for you.

You despise GW yet you only joined 4 days ago and have made over 60 posts, all in this thread, all defending gw...

No one needs to label you a plant, you made it obvious yourself!

Yeah, because frankly dakkadakka is a pretty horrible place. But I ended up reading this thread. And then someone got me annoyed. SOMEONE WAS WRONG ON THE INTERNET, a feeling I'm sure we've all had at some point. I'm not defending GW, I'm defending Age of Sigmar. I'm defending the fact that for the first time in ages I can actually go into a GW shop and feel like I'm not massively out of place. I hate everything 40k past first edition. I hate what they've done to white dwarf by turning into an advertising pamphlet with no actual substance. And I hate the fact they blew up the warhammer world, even though I'm kind of liking some of what they're doing with it afterwards.

So screw you and your plant gak.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
As much as you may hate AoS, it's still a game.

So's russian roulette.

Yes...?

Not entirely sure what your point is.

It may be a game, but it doesn't change the fact that its terrible.

Funny reading this kind of hyperbole while people who have actually, you know, PLAYED the same say it's quite fun...

 Bottle wrote:

People can play weak units now, but play more of them.

What? was there some sort of restriction on weak units in your town? must have sucked for those gobbo players

 Bottle wrote:
People can give themselves handicaps if they know they usually beat that opponent. Yes, all this could have been done in 8th, but it is much easier now.

Huh? How is it much easier?

I cant think of anything easier than 'I will play with 200 less points' or 'you start the game with an extra 200 vps'

How is it so much easier in a game with no inherant balance to start with?

Mymearan wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
As much as you may hate AoS, it's still a game.

So's russian roulette.

Yes...?

Not entirely sure what your point is.

It may be a game, but it doesn't change the fact that its terrible.

Funny reading this kind of hyperbole while people who have actually, you know, PLAYED the same say it's quite fun...

I doubt we'd get the same response (or any response) from the people who play Russian roulette though