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.
2015/07/21 20:41:29
Subject: Re:Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
Azreal13 wrote: So, if "the rest of us" aren't playing the game in a fluffy manner like you do, how else do you think we're playing?
I'm not saying "you are the only person in the world that plays this way" but right now, you are the person most actively advocating that playstyle and apparently endorsing GW's pursuit of this playstyle, therefore you represent that point of view. I represent the other point of view, so by "rest of us" I, I thought fairly obviously, am referring to those who share the view that things would be better as a game, rather than a dumbed down RPG.
I'm actually NOT advocating that for the game, and only minimally for the playstyle (lord, how many times can I say that I don't really like AoS that much as a game?). I'm stating that there is a percentage of people who quite enjoy it -- go look at the poll that was done here and on Warseer. I think it's important to:
1. Be respectful of people who do like it and not denigrate them as players
2. Recognize that there may be new players entering the wargame market who wouldn't play more complex games
3. Understand that there are people who like the models for what they are
I think it's fantastic that there's a game that fills this niche, as people that I would not have thought would be into miniatures are now looking at a miniature game. I am happy for them that there is something fun for these players; the alternative is being angry at Games Workshop for not making another game that would be for me. I have no energy or time to be angry about something that isn't targeted to me, and clearly, AoS is not targeted to steal players who are HAPPY with games with complex rules from those games. Keep in mind, too, that some of these people may then go on to try other games, and might like them -- thus growing the market.
Personally, I like the Sigmarite models more than anything about the game (and I will buy them), the fluff is a little interesting (I'll buy some, but not all of it), and the game is moderately fun, but not my thing to do regularly.
I enjoy games that has both heroic and nonheroic models on the same board and I like high model count games; I think AoS strips out the usefulness of everything nonheroic in an attempt to reduce model count and simplify the game.
For what it is worth, it is quite possible to separate Fluff (Background, World Building, History, Etc.) from Rules.
Most of the people in my Kings of War group are perfectly happy with using the Kings of War rules to represent battles in The Old World of Warhammer. (The exceptions do not object - they just don't care. The games could be taking place in the deserts of Barsoom as far as they are concerned.)
Me... I kind of want Mantic to expand on the world of Mantica more - so I would like to play in their background - but the Kings of War rules are admirably setting independent.
If I liked the Sigmarines more, I might feel differently about the game - I consider them to be background breaking - but then the world done went *BOOM!* and there just ain't much more background breaking than that.
I remember how well taking a similar approach to the Forgotten Realms did for Wizard of the Coast.... (Subtle hint: Wizards has admitted that that was one of the big mistakes that they made with 4th edition... turns out folks are attached to their fluff.)
GW could have avoided some of this backlash by looking at how other companies have done after similar Fluff breaking changes. (Old World of Darkness sold better than New World of Darkness, old Forgotten Realms sold better than the revised Forgotten Realms, etc..)
Incidentally - Age of Sigmarines is the politest term that my group uses to describe the new models.... Some of them have watched Red Dwarf and The Young Ones a few too many times....
The Auld Grump - those familiar with Lister no exactly what word I have been suppressing....
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/21 20:42:54
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
@TheAuldGrump - I loved Red Dwarf. And the Forgotten Realms!
At some point, I will buy the Kings of War rulebook to read through it. Lots of people have such good things to say about it.
Since I don't like regimented fantasy combat, it won't be for me (I know this, 100%), but it will still be a cool read, and can join my huge list of game systems that I've enjoyed without playing.
2015/07/21 21:06:53
Subject: Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
Talys wrote: @TheAuldGrump - I loved Red Dwarf. And the Forgotten Realms!
At some point, I will buy the Kings of War rulebook to read through it. Lots of people have such good things to say about it.
Since I don't like regimented fantasy combat, it won't be for me (I know this, 100%), but it will still be a cool read, and can join my huge list of game systems that I've enjoyed without playing.
And that, I think, is likely the central bone of contention - there just are not that many games that cover regimental battles, with rank and file that are literally in ranks and files.
There are any number of games that cover the type of game that AoS is covering - and often with better rules.
And regiments are what people had built their armies around - putting work into making their units and armies into cohesive wholes.
When you have put that amount of work into building your armies... it does feel like a betrayal.
GWis going to lose a lot of those players to other games - Kings of War is an excellent example, because it allows folks to port their entire armies over - rank, file, fifes, drums, standards, and all.
And because they feel understandably betrayed... those sales are lost - these are people that are not going to be buying much from GW in the future.
One of the reasons why I feel that AoS might have been better off as a separate game, rather than as a replacement for Warhammer.
But it is also fair to say that the rules have been... substandard for at least two editions before they decided to blow up the world.
I left Warhammer for Kings of War well before the whole End Times nonsense, and I do not feel betrayed in that way.
But after the changes to the rules for eighth edition... I am a heck of a lot more likely to play Kings of War. Hell, I would rather play Mordheim than AoS, if I felt in the mood for a more skirmishy game.
To sum it up (spoilered because of Listerisms....):
Spoiler:
The Auld Grump
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
2015/07/21 21:17:42
Subject: Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
"And because they feel understandably betrayed... those sales are lost - these are people that are not going to be buying much from GW in the future."
True, true. I'm so disgusted at GW axing WHFB and giving those gamers "the finger" on their way out the door with rules intended to keep them from playing the AoS version in public. It's really killed a lot of the interest I had in 40K as well. I already have plenty of GW miniatures - why risk buying any more since they've already shown themselves to be willing to flush one of their flagship gaming IP's?
Alles klar, eh, Kommissar?
2015/07/21 21:22:27
Subject: Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
TheAuldGrump wrote:For what it is worth, it is quite possible to separate Fluff (Background, World Building, History, Etc.) from Rules.
I've said it so often! Words to liv... er... game by. Great example too.
Incidentally - Age of Sigmarines is the politest term that my group uses to describe the new models.... Some of them have watched Red Dwarf and The Young Ones a few too many times....
The Auld Grump - those familiar with Lister no exactly what word I have been suppressing....
@TheAuldGrump: perfectly reasonable points, man...
it does seem that majority of people who got their fix from the regimental aspect of WFB are out of luck with AoS...
personally, i hope that GW has enough of a success with AoS that they see an increase in Fantasy sales for many years...
sadly, the prognosis is looking grim from at least half of the community:(...
@Killkrazy: just to clarify why i speak up about price and such, even though i am a collector, it's because i buy things like starter sets, box armies, and box sets even if i just want a single mini out of it...
i like to support the companies that make a product i enjoy...
for instance, i bought the Confrontation AoR box just for the books and LE mini, the old GW army boxes for the book and LE mini, the Rackham Hybrid and Nemesis boxes for the books and minis, and so on...
for AT-43, i just bought the books and the few metal minis, because i had no interest in the minis...
i bought the Cadwallon RPG books, even though i would only read them, and never play, just for the art and words...
same goes for the FFG40K books...
i could have bought the 7 or 8 minis i really wanted from the DV box seperately on eBay, but instead i pre-ordered it from the Frontline guys...
i could order the few guys i really want from AoS, or, for a few dollars more, i can get the whole box set from Frontline Gaming...
i do end up with a bunch of surplus minis and gaming aids, but i support two companies in the bargain, then paint a single mini from the box and double my money...
if i decide i will never use some of the minis, i can sell them on, so it's not like i'm just throwing money down a hole...
cheers
jah
Paint like ya got a pair!
Available for commissions.
2015/07/21 22:37:01
Subject: Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
Or if you don't want to spend money but want a simple skirmish game you could try Shieldbreaker for free (18 pages rulebook with army building guides/lists and some illustrations all in one, it also has an online army builder).
2015/07/21 23:46:27
Subject: Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
Commissar Molotov wrote: "And because they feel understandably betrayed... those sales are lost - these are people that are not going to be buying much from GW in the future."
True, true. I'm so disgusted at GW axing WHFB and giving those gamers "the finger" on their way out the door with rules intended to keep them from playing the AoS version in public. It's really killed a lot of the interest I had in 40K as well. I already have plenty of GW miniatures - why risk buying any more since they've already shown themselves to be willing to flush one of their flagship gaming IP's?
They're getting rid of a game that isn't selling well for them, and replacing it with another game that uses a lot of the models. I'm not sure why the outrage over that part of it.
If 40k weren't selling well, I'd imagine they'd make massive changes too. But that isn't the case. If anything, they're making Fantasy more like 40k -- trying to leverage many of the things that made 40k successful -- and fusing it with the elements that they think make other game systems attractive (ie simpler rules, fewer models).
Some people will think they're taking the worst of 40k and the worst of Fantasy Battle and making into a game destined for failure. Other people will think they're taking the best of 40k, and the best of Fantasy Battle. And both groups are right, because it's just a matter of opinion.
To me, the success of AoS could have been sought in one of two ways by GW: to find "community approval" as the most beloved of its genre, and basically taking players from other games; or, by finding and serving a currently underserved niche. GW has obviously chosen the latter, for better or worse. The reason you don't see an avalanche of community approval is pretty simple: it's not looking for targeted to the people who are happy with their existing games.
2015/07/21 23:51:38
Subject: Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
Talys wrote: ......by finding and serving a currently underserved niche. GW has obviously chosen the latter, for better or worse.
It could have been done so much better its genuinely tragic.
I would have definitely done things differently (and tried a lot harder to create appeal for the existing playerbase). But what do I know... I thought Facebook was a crazy idea and can't imagine why people post pictures of their dinner for their friends to see
2015/07/22 00:01:20
Subject: Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
If, at this point in time, a niche is currently underserved, it probably isn't a rich enough vein to be worth the biggest fish in the pond digging.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Azreal13 wrote:If, at this point in time, a niche is currently underserved, it probably isn't a rich enough vein to be worth the biggest fish in the pond digging.
To me, Az, that is the quintessential question. If you ask me, people like my wife and the couple of gals that occasionally play magic with het who will all probably play AoS a little aren't going to spend enough to make things interesting fir GW. it isn't even a question of how much models or books cost; they go to the hobby shop like 3 times a year and mostly buy Magic stuff and goodies fir their significant others.
But I have been totally wring predicting such smashing successes as 3D movies, Facebook, and giant screen smartphones.
TheAuldGrump wrote:
Talys wrote: @TheAuldGrump - I loved Red Dwarf. And the Forgotten Realms!
At some point, I will buy the Kings of War rulebook to read through it. Lots of people have such good things to say about it.
Since I don't like regimented fantasy combat, it won't be for me (I know this, 100%), but it will still be a cool read, and can join my huge list of game systems that I've enjoyed without playing.
And that, I think, is likely the central bone of contention - there just are not that many games that cover regimental battles, with rank and file that are literally in ranks and files.
There are any number of games that cover the type of game that AoS is covering - and often with better rules.
And regiments are what people had built their armies around - putting work into making their units and armies into cohesive wholes.
When you have put that amount of work into building your armies... it does feel like a betrayal.
GWis going to lose a lot of those players to other games - Kings of War is an excellent example, because it allows folks to port their entire armies over - rank, file, fifes, drums, standards, and all.
And because they feel understandably betrayed... those sales are lost - these are people that are not going to be buying much from GW in the future.
One of the reasons why I feel that AoS might have been better off as a separate game, rather than as a replacement for Warhammer.
But it is also fair to say that the rules have been... substandard for at least two editions before they decided to blow up the world.
I left Warhammer for Kings of War well before the whole End Times nonsense, and I do not feel betrayed in that way.
But after the changes to the rules for eighth edition... I am a heck of a lot more likely to play Kings of War. Hell, I would rather play Mordheim than AoS, if I felt in the mood for a more skirmishy game.
To sum it up (spoilered because of Listerisms....):
Spoiler:
The Auld Grump
Yes, I have one acquaintance in that category, though he's more sad than angry, I think. His FB army was 'complete' and so for 4+ years he hasn't really bought anything meaningful, and him and his group still ply 6e, I think. So if there had been a 9e rulebook that was super awesome, he might have bought rules, bit he really has no interest in building another army.
Neither here nor there, but we did get into a conversation about what could get him back into new miniatures, and he simply didn't know. He's just quite content playing 6e, and spends almost all his hobby time building terrain.
2015/07/22 07:54:00
Subject: Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
They're getting rid of a game that isn't selling well for them, and replacing it with another game that uses a lot of the models. I'm not sure why the outrage over that part of it.
They got rid of a well loved game that wasn't selling well due to mismanagement, and replaced it with a shallow facsimilie that addressed none of the reasons causing the poor sales. They could have done so many things to boost fantasy sales, like active support as shown by the End Times boom.
Some people will think they're taking the worst of 40k and the worst of Fantasy Battle and making into a game destined for failure. Other people will think they're taking the best of 40k, and the best of Fantasy Battle. And both groups are right, because it's just a matter of opinion.
Whether or not you agree that it's the best or worst of 40k, it's made the games so similar there's no real reason to play both.
To me, the success of AoS could have been sought in one of two ways by GW: to find "community approval" as the most beloved of its genre, and basically taking players from other games; or, by finding and serving a currently underserved niche. GW has obviously chosen the latter, for better or worse. The reason you don't see an avalanche of community approval is pretty simple: it's not looking for targeted to the people who are happy with their existing games.
But AoS isn't an underserved niche, it's pretty well served already, by dozens of generic high fantasy skirmish games that do it better. Also targetting people other than those that already like your game and want to give you money is the most fething stupid business plan I've ever heard.
I still can't fathom why they didn't introduce AoS as a 4th game or a WHFB lite. That way everyone is happy and money gets spent. An awful lot of the upset seems to be down to WHFB going away, rather than AoS being crap.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/22 08:29:08
2015/07/22 09:16:53
Subject: Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
Azreal13 wrote:If, at this point in time, a niche is currently underserved, it probably isn't a rich enough vein to be worth the biggest fish in the pond digging.
To me, Az, that is the quintessential question. If you ask me, people like my wife and the couple of gals that occasionally play magic with het who will all probably play AoS a little aren't going to spend enough to make things interesting fir GW. it isn't even a question of how much models or books cost; they go to the hobby shop like 3 times a year and mostly buy Magic stuff and goodies fir their significant others.
But I have been totally wring predicting such smashing successes as 3D movies, Facebook, and giant screen smartphones.
Jokes aside, that's what I guess the future for this game will be. Like other light and goofy games with shallow rules, people will buy it, play it a few times and then quietly lose interest. The competitive players who would have carried over from 8th have been largely alienated, so AoS needs a big draw of new players who like the "forced casual" ethos. But with GW publicity being what it is and the internet buzz being largely people rolling their eyes at the beard rules, I can't see many new players being drawn in.
"The 75mm gun is firing. The 37mm gun is firing, but is traversed round the wrong way. The Browning is jammed. I am saying "Driver, advance." and the driver, who can't hear me, is reversing. And as I look over the top of the turret and see twelve enemy tanks fifty yards away, someone hands me a cheese sandwich."
2015/07/22 09:54:26
Subject: Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
The original rules for the LOTR strategy game served the fantasy skirmish niche better than AoS does and ever will.
Easy army composition without totally throwing away balance (only restriction was a 33% limit on bow-armed models), simple base rules without sacrificing tactical options, etc.
That was a great game. If GW wanted a skirmish system which could also go up to large battles then they should've just ported their fantasy stuff over to that rather than make a new game which is worse in every regard, in my opinion.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/22 09:55:57
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2015/07/22 12:23:04
Subject: Re:Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
There is a lot of talk about how badly GW management is and how they don't know what they are doing, but I can't really think of any other game companies that have been in business longer than GW. There are a handful, but of them, most have been bought out/up and became a division of a larger company with broader scope than just games. GW must be doing something right to have had the longevity they have enjoyed. Perhaps this is the end of their run, but I hope not. I want them to keep going. Will I play AoS? Probably not, but it does not mean I wish for it to fail, or I won't play because it is bad, I am just not into the fantasy theme.
There are some aspects about it that I like over 40k. I like the simplified rule book. I like the idea of "warscrolls" containing all the rules needed for certain models and how those can have rules interaction with each other. I think having a system like that is a lot more flexible over time and can let the game designers do different things, correct balance on the fly more easily, introduct new rules for minis or factions. Being locked into something like the BrB and Codex makes changes hard and shifts in the game much larger in scale. The AoS rules and warscrolls thing "feels" more like a CCG mechanic. It lets the player grow their army in smaller bites. Don't like "goblins" as part of your army (does AoS even have Goblins?) great you are probably only out $30-$40, try something else. In 40K to figure out you don't like Tau, you are probably invested for $350 or so before you have enough stuff to figure it out, and by then it is too late.
2015/07/22 13:26:02
Subject: Re:Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
Loborocket wrote: The AoS rules and warscrolls thing "feels" more like a CCG mechanic.
There needs to be limits though. Wizards of the Coast realized pretty early on that if you allow unrestricted free-form deck building, you're going to have a situation where decks get built with 15 mountains and 45 lightning bolts.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/22 13:26:56
2015/07/22 13:31:38
Subject: Re:Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
Loborocket wrote: The AoS rules and warscrolls thing "feels" more like a CCG mechanic.
There needs to be limits though. Wizards of the Coast realized pretty early on that if you allow unrestricted free-form deck building, you're going to have a situation where decks get built with 15 mountains and 45 lightning bolts.
I don't disagree with that. I just like that change in thinking. Making the game more "modular". Not having limits around it does seem weird though. Perhaps there is some more grand vision not yet revealed around that?
2015/07/22 14:09:35
Subject: Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
I think that grand vision may be "do what Warmachine does!"
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Azreal13 wrote: I think that grand vision may be "do what Warmachine does!"
Don't know Warmachine, not sure what that means, but it sounds like a sarcastic/negative dig at GW. Sometimes emulating the competition is not a bad thing. No need to re-invent the wheel.
2015/07/22 14:27:49
Subject: Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
Azreal13 wrote: I think that grand vision may be "do what Warmachine does!"
Don't know Warmachine, not sure what that means, but it sounds like a sarcastic/negative dig at GW. Sometimes emulating the competition is not a bad thing. No need to re-invent the wheel.
It is. GW copying PP is similar to a Chimpanzee reading a newspaper. It can copy the movements. It can even convince some it is reading the paper, but in the end the chimp doesn't understand the words on the page. And neither does GW.
2015/07/22 15:15:53
Subject: Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
It is. GW copying PP is similar to a Chimpanzee reading a newspaper. It can copy the movements. It can even convince some it is reading the paper, but in the end the chimp doesn't understand the words on the page. And neither does GW.
Time will tell I guess.
Ancetdotally, I see a lot more GW games being played in my local stores than I see Warmachine. So copying or not, knowing what they are doing or not, GW is having more success at getting games played in stores around me.
2015/07/22 15:18:28
Subject: Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
Yeah, to counter that nobody has played a GW game at my club in a month, but Warmachine has been played every week.
These sorts of anecdotes really don't have a wide enough scope to mean anything.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Azreal13 wrote: I think that grand vision may be "do what Warmachine does!"
Don't know Warmachine, not sure what that means, but it sounds like a sarcastic/negative dig at GW. Sometimes emulating the competition is not a bad thing. No need to re-invent the wheel.
It is. GW copying PP is similar to a Chimpanzee reading a newspaper. It can copy the movements. It can even convince some it is reading the paper, but in the end the chimp doesn't understand the words on the page. And neither does GW.
I'm stealing this and putting in my Sig.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
2015/07/22 15:25:43
Subject: Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
Azreal13 wrote: I think that grand vision may be "do what Warmachine does!"
Don't know Warmachine, not sure what that means, but it sounds like a sarcastic/negative dig at GW. Sometimes emulating the competition is not a bad thing. No need to re-invent the wheel.
It's not a dig. You talk about ccg like war scrolls that have all a units stats and special rules? Privateer press have been doing that for over ten years - every unit has a card with all their stars and special rules on it. No flicking through twenty or thirty pages of three different codices. Card. Hence 'doing what warmachine does'.
Then again, all companies feed off of each other. Infinity n3 has a lot of nods towards warmachine, im sure new games and new editions of games will likewise have similar features and traits to current games and design philosophies.
greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy
"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are"
2015/07/22 16:09:32
Subject: Re:Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
Loborocket wrote: There is a lot of talk about how badly GW management is and how they don't know what they are doing, but I can't really think of any other game companies that have been in business longer than GW. There are a handful, but of them, most have been bought out/up and became a division of a larger company with broader scope than just games. GW must be doing something right to have had the longevity they have enjoyed.
I think it's mostly inertia. They produced some innovative stuff in the 80's, and muscled out all of the competition and have been riding on that for a while.
It's a fallacy to think that being big or being around for a long time means they're doing anything right; it just means they've gotten away with it until now. The more I know about big companies the more I'm convinced that none of them have the faintest idea about what they are doing.
2015/07/22 16:44:15
Subject: Re:Anyone kind of hopeing AoS is the final nail for GW?
Loborocket wrote: The AoS rules and warscrolls thing "feels" more like a CCG mechanic.
There needs to be limits though. Wizards of the Coast realized pretty early on that if you allow unrestricted free-form deck building, you're going to have a situation where decks get built with 15 mountains and 45 lightning bolts.
This was actually a cool deck. Add a few fireballs. Plague rats, too! They were nice, cheap, stupid decks for the everyday player. When MtG launched, it was ubercasual, the instructions were very simple (now look at the volume of errata, lol), and there were a bazillion cheap ways to make the game unplayable. Even some great, "I go, you die, ha ha!" combos with a good draw.
It actually took quite a while before there were such restrictions, officially
Didn't prevent us from going crazy buying truckloads of boosters, lol.
...
