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.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
For that mythical waac who arrogantly clubs baby seals and would love to invest in AoS just for the abuse potential, never met or heard about anyone like that older than 12 years old.

If that is true, then AoS should play fine outside of internet argument.

The Division Of Joy wrote:
An app that's free to download, and contains a small amount of free stuff. But then charges to download full rules packs? They'll be some WM players picking their words carefully, some might even have to stop the memes for a bit.

I've seen no indication of the above for the AoS app.

 SilverDevilfish wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
If AoS is more prone to being broken than 8th, then surely WAAC players should like it more? Or are we saying WAAC players prefer more of a challenge (from the system, that is; not necessarily their human opponents)?

Eh, WAAC is a bastardized thing nowadays. It's basically a generic insult that means "you play the game at a higher level than I am comfortable with, so I'm going to shun you and call you names".

Honestly I'm surprised the term LCD hasn't been used to counter people who use it frequently.

whats a LCD?

 Desubot wrote:
whats a LCD?

Lowest Common Denominator.

 pretre wrote:

The Division Of Joy wrote:
An app that's free to download, and contains a small amount of free stuff. But then charges to download full rules packs? They'll be some WM players picking their words carefully, some might even have to stop the memes for a bit.

I've seen no indication of the above for the AoS app.

I've seen a couple of rumours, that's all.

Lysergic acid diethylamide?


I know thats the wrong abbreviation but this whole thread reminds me of a bad trip

TBF the opposite of LCD isn't WAAC but rather CPMR (competitive player master race).

Okay I made that one up.

If one player is super into building cheesy lists and arguing about them on the internet but rarely builds or paints any of his models and rarely plays and another player has thousands of points (or scrolls) of beautifully painted miniatures and plays weekly games with his friends using non-competitive lists, who is the more "serious" player? Who is playing at "a higher level"?

In reality, there are all kinds of ways to enjoy this hobby.

The Division Of Joy wrote:
An app that's free to download, and contains a small amount of free stuff. But then charges to download full rules packs? They'll be some WM players picking their words carefully, some might even have to stop the memes for a bit.

Except it would be different because nothing is forcing you to buy the rules packs on war room as you get all the rules for the models on the cards you get with the models, including points costs. If you're forced to buy rules packs on the AoS app to get the 'points' or whatever, it's still worse than War Room because you're forced to do so, where as War Room you can just ignore that it exists.

That's if the app is where the balancing stuff is located but that might be an old rumour now anyway. If not then yeah it's the same thing.

So if the large expensive book contains Warscrolls and campaigns will we expect to see those warscrolls online for free at somepoint? Or will any new introduces Warscrolls only be obtainable through a purchase?

Xyxox wrote:
There are no spiky bits to discourage climbing it, so I expect an orange cone hat at some point in the not too distant future.

Stelios? Is that Stelios? I want a plane ticket to Nottingham right away!

Avrik_Shasla wrote:Games Workshop has the power to dominate the market, they just need to make the right decisions. So far, so good.

Alternatively: Games Workshop has the power to dominate the market, they just need to make the right decisions. So far... pfft?

Manchu wrote:If one player is super into building cheesy lists and arguing about them on the internet but rarely builds or paints any of his models and rarely plays and another player has thousands of points (or scrolls) of beautifully painted miniatures and plays weekly games with his friends using non-competitive lists, who is the more "serious" player? Who is playing at "a higher level"?

In reality, there are all kinds of ways to enjoy this hobby.

And GW's contradictory rules, intent, and message will make sure that people who have different ways of enjoying this hobby will butt heads more often than usual.

 Vermis wrote:
And GW's contradictory rules, intent, and message will make sure that people who enjoy different ways of enjoying this hobby will butt heads more often than usual.

I kind of doubt that. Seems like people who are more into competitive gaming will steer clear of AoS. And people who are more into narrative gaming will join in.

I got to thinking about this "My Battle" app.

How is that going to go over in Germany?

 Xyxox wrote:
I got to thinking about this "My Battle" app.

How is that going to go over in Germany?

Mein kampf?

It may cause something of a Führer.

They did nazi that coming...

 Manchu wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
For that mythical waac who arrogantly clubs baby seals and would love to invest in AoS just for the abuse potential, never met or heard about anyone like that older than 12 years old.

If that is true, then AoS should play fine outside of internet argument.

Not really no. It will be unbalanced even if you dont abuse it, basic things like pivoting or measurement barely work also last but not least, appears to be less tactical than whfb.

Not to mention it will absolutely play bad for newcomers who wont have any idea how to make sth resembling even forces.

We will all be newcomers to AoS. The starter box seems pretty well balanced. Once people new to AoS and wargaming generally get the feel for it, they will be okay making up their own scenarios.

 Manchu wrote:

 Vermis wrote:
And GW's contradictory rules, intent, and message will make sure that people who enjoy different ways of enjoying this hobby will butt heads more often than usual.

I kind of doubt that. Seems like people who are more into competitive gaming will steer clear of AoS. And people who are more into narrative gaming will join in.

This was my point.

As to the use of WAAC.. people who look for technicalities in the rules, take FotM armies, have zero interest in sportsmanship, and often go to extreme measures to win games. If your club doesn't have these, I am thoroughly surprised. I've gamed with people who throw dice, that same guy would take a Rhino off the table if it got popped and spike it like a football.. One instance, I had a pewter part fly over and cut my leg.
Another, the guy sets up "sniping" lanes with vehicles so that only specific models are visible, so those are the ones that have to be pulled.
Then there's the guy who argues over every single thing you do so that the rulebook ends up out the entire game. Same guy does beardy measuring and generous disembark.
Old WHFB dirty tricks like catching corners and the different exploits that dealt with facing and re-dressing.
With guess weapons back in the day or I guess in WHFB too, guys who would have things that were a certain pre-known size, and conveniently leave them on the table prior to their shooting phase. "Gee, why is that rulebook laying there?"
Guys that had special dice (more than one was busted) or non-standard templates that are a bit larger than the official ones...
Guys in tournaments that switch out to an entirely different army when they find out what you're playing.

When I gamed at a club, I put up with this stuff but when I consider branching back out and see this kinda stuff still considered norm (that was in Va Beach, I see the same stuff in San Diego).

No, I don't do these things. All of this type of thing, plus seeing grown men get in each others faces and yell (you could see flecks of spit most times), people packing their stuff and storming out, or all the little net-list guys running around looking for loopholes in the rules or bad punctuation so that they could build an army around a poorly phrased section of rules. Again.. if you somehow have managed to game in a place where these things don't happen.. I'm amazed and my hat is off to you.. but WAAC is a real thing. A guy named Shane said this to me "winning is all that matters.. if I'm not winning, I'm not having fun. This game is all about having fun right?"

I'm happy for Dumbhammer because if it's that simple, how do you pull the above crap? Yeah, cheating is cheating but come on..

So can someone give me a synopsis on what is going on. The the two camps of pro vs con. Sorry but there's to many pages to read. Thanks

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Xyxox wrote:
I got to thinking about this "My Battle" app.

How is that going to go over in Germany?

Mein kampf?

Literally, Mein Kampf.

 Manchu wrote:
TBF the opposite of LCD isn't WAAC but rather CPMR (competitive player master race).

Okay I made that one up.

If one player is super into building cheesy lists and arguing about them on the internet but rarely builds or paints any of his models and rarely plays and another player has thousands of points (or scrolls) of beautifully painted miniatures and plays weekly games with his friends using non-competitive lists, who is the more "serious" player? Who is playing at "a higher level"?

In reality, there are all kinds of ways to enjoy this hobby.

Eh true, I just used it an example because I'm pretty sure the people I call LCDs don't fit the technical definition of an LCD (thus the same situation as many people who use the term WAAC).

LCDs for me are the people who play at a casual level and shun anyone who doesn't play the game the way they want to. They expect their friends to always tone down their lists and will refuse to compromise, the term "Think of the other players fun" is just a phrase they use to guilt trip their more competitive friends (because they sure as hell don't care about the comp players fun). If that competitive friend asked them to play a more competitive army after say 100 games of giving the LCD what they want, the LCD would try to appeal to "common internet sympathy" or use phrases as "GW intended it this way" to reinforce control and not play.

Basically LCDs are the casual equivalent of an elitist for me.

Not exactly the common definition of LCD...

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Schmapdi wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The inclusion of the "demons" keyword is a nice little nod to the WTF way that Lizardmen are all demons in AoS.

Wait, what?!?!

Lizardmen are Daemons of Order.

Eww, they're taking bits from Brighthammer...

 Manchu wrote:
We will all be newcomers to AoS. The starter box seems pretty well balanced. Once people new to AoS and wargaming generally get the feel for it, they will be okay making up their own scenarios.

If the people are fine with their games being tacticaly meaningless then sure but without a good balancing mechanism you dont even have a way of saying whether it's your tactics or not that decided the game. You can guess and that's it.

@MLaw you mixed people who are serious with the rules, straight cheaters, douches, guys with a temper, guys just jumping the GWs "gentleman agreement" idiocy and normal guys playing by the rules. You only proved to me that the term is a meaningless mess.

Not to mention half of the problems you mention wouldnt exist if the rules weren't crap. What kind of ridiculous game this has to be that you as a player have to rely on massive exodus of other kind of players, elaborate pre game negotiations, trusted friendships or fixing the rules to have a chance to have some fun. Really I'd make anything work with all that.

That's what good ruleset is for, to avoid all the bs.

 mikhaila wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
That statue needs more detailing.

Pigeons will take care of that. Nice white highlights.

Perhaps that could be the next paint in their paint line: pigeon white.

 Melissia wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Schmapdi wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The inclusion of the "demons" keyword is a nice little nod to the WTF way that Lizardmen are all demons in AoS.

Wait, what?!?!

Lizardmen are Daemons of Order.

Eww, they're taking bits from Brighthammer...

So are the Slaan some kind of Demi God's of Sigmar now?

Brighthammer would be better than AoS

griffen127 wrote:
So can someone give me a synopsis on what is going on. The the two camps of pro vs con. Sorry but there's to many pages to read. Thanks

The pro side says this will be fun to play. The con side says this is even more horribly imbalanced than the previous version of the game. /nutshell

 Manchu wrote:

 Vermis wrote:
And GW's contradictory rules, intent, and message will make sure that people who enjoy different ways of enjoying this hobby will butt heads more often than usual.

I kind of doubt that. Seems like people who are more into competitive gaming will steer clear of AoS. And people who are more into narrative gaming will join in.

Hello, primarily narrative gamer here; hogwash.

This game is written for kids(who most definitely WILL end up butting heads because the "WAAC" types are more common there simply because kids mature at different rates and there will still be a few of the "nuh-uh, you totes didn't hit me, I shot you first!" gits floating about) and adults who just want to push models about as an excuse to meet up with their mates, not narrative gamers. If this mythical tome that will somehow magically fix the lack of factions, the abysmal fluff, the total lack of balance, the total lack of an army selection system beyond "take what you like, deploy 'till there's no more space"(and will supposedly accomplish this Herculean task without the industry standard of a points system) ever actually appears, maybe then it will appeal to narrative gamers as a group, until then it's a barely-functional "party game" not a functional storytelling tool.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
We will all be newcomers to AoS. The starter box seems pretty well balanced. Once people new to AoS and wargaming generally get the feel for it, they will be okay making up their own scenarios.

If the people are fine with their games being tacticaly meaningless then sure but without a good balancing mechanism you dont even have a way of saying whether it's your tactics or not that decided the game. You can guess and that's it.

@MLaw you mixed people who are serious with the rules, straight cheaters, douches, guys with a temper, guys just jumping the GWs "gentleman agreement" idiocy and normal guys playing by the rules. You only proved to me that the term is a meaningless mess.

Not to mention half of the problems you mention wouldnt exist if the rules weren't crap. What kind of ridiculous game this has to be that you as a player have to rely on massive exodus of other kind of players, elaborate pre game negotiations, trusted friendships or fixing the rules to have a chance to have some fun. Really I'd make anything work with all that.

That's what good ruleset is for, to avoid all the bs.

You'll likely get a different answer asking different people what 'WAAC' means to them.

For me, WAAC are those guys who put 'winning' above everything else - including putting it above having fun.

Those guys -know- who they are, generally, and yeah, they hate the label - because it -fits-. Most of them will deny it, but - watching them play a game, and it becomes quite obvious.

Those same guys will say, 'Well, WAAC is my way of having fun!' which just proves the point, really.

 Yodhrin wrote:
adults who just want to push models about as an excuse to meet up with their mates, not narrative gamers

This taxonomy is becoming complicated ...

 Manchu wrote:

 Vermis wrote:
And GW's contradictory rules, intent, and message will make sure that people who enjoy different ways of enjoying this hobby will butt heads more often than usual.

I kind of doubt that. Seems like people who are more into competitive gaming will steer clear of AoS. And people who are more into narrative gaming will join in.

That also neatly sums up why I dislike AoS. Old WHF could more-or-less be played competitively as well as casually (albeit with more and more patching necessary by TO's as editions went on). Now the first set of gamers has been told they were having the wrong sort of fun, and Warhammer from this point onwards will be aggressively targeted away from them. Did you enjoy playing Warhammer as at least a semi-competitive game during the last twenty-odd years? Sucks to be you.