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.

I had fun with it.

I love these rules, because they aren't mandatory.

If you like playing the distinguished military commander, play Empire or an army that doesn't require you to act anything aside from a distinguished military commander.

If you like playing the barbarian, play Orks, because you get to yell alot.

If you like playing the Elf, play Aelves, because you can be aloof and arrogant during your hero phase.

Frankly, I find it fantastic, because it reinforces the "this is a roleplaying game" attitude that I enjoy in my warhammers.

people take them selves to seriously and devalue them selves by counted out others who wish to have relaxed fun...

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
AOS is a TMIR game, where the result ("winning") is far less important than the process ("playing").

Win or lose, playing the game is less fun with idiotic, arbitrary, and obnoxious rules like these.

 Melissia wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
AOS is a TMIR game, where the result ("winning") is far less important than the process ("playing").

Win or lose, playing the game is less fun with idiotic, arbitrary, and obnoxious rules like these.

so don't play w/ those rules, then? I don't think any Dwarf or Chaos or Ork, etc player will complain. If they do, then don't play them...

 Melissia wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
AOS is a TMIR game, where the result ("winning") is far less important than the process ("playing").

Win or lose, playing the game is less fun with idiotic, arbitrary, and obnoxious rules like these.

alternatively you could assign each model as a chess piece... FUN

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
AOS is a TMIR game, where the result ("winning") is far less important than the process ("playing").

Win or lose, playing the game is less fun with idiotic, arbitrary, and obnoxious rules like these.

so don't play w/ those rules, then? I don't think any Dwarf or Chaos or Ork, etc player will complain. If they do, then don't play them...

If the game requires that one houserule it to make it playable and fun, it is by definition badly designed.

So by saying this, you're admitting AoS is a badly designed game.

 Melissia wrote:

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
AOS is a TMIR game, where the result ("winning") is far less important than the process ("playing").

Win or lose, playing the game is less fun with idiotic, arbitrary, and obnoxious rules like these.

so don't play w/ those rules, then? I don't think any Dwarf or Chaos or Ork, etc player will complain. If they do, then don't play them...

If the game requires that one houserule it to make it playable and fun, it is by definition badly designed.

So by saying this, you're admitting AoS is a badly designed game.

Not quite, adjustments =/= poor design. Plus, your opinion of "playable and fun" is probably different than other people's, just a guess.

 Melissia wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
AOS is a TMIR game, where the result ("winning") is far less important than the process ("playing").

Win or lose, playing the game is less fun with idiotic, arbitrary, and obnoxious rules like these.

That's an opinion, as would be any claim that hinges on a value of "fun".

This means that it cannot be used as a premise to conclude a fact, such as "This game is badly designed."

It can only be used to conclude another opinion, such as "I don't like the way this game is designed."

It would have been better if they didn't release any rules.

 Col. Tartleton wrote:
It would have been better if they didn't release any rules.

Then I would be sad. I've never played Fantasy, but will be buying some awesome things because of this rules set.

Maybe the point of the rule is to weed out the no-fun-allowed SJWs in your area so you don't have to risk playing them?

 Hulksmash wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
I could see that too, Hulk, although there has been a huge 3rd party model market for fantasy, with people using them for GW rules. If that now shifts to Kings of War, GW will definitely lose market share, although my army includes a mix of their models and other manufacturers (mostly others, because I'm me ). Whether AoS model sales are enough to make up for that will be interesting...

I do think the question "what market share?" is appropriate. When an entire line sells less than a single product of your other line I'm thinking there isn't much they can lose. I can't remember the last time I saw or heard of someone locally (and we're a pretty big gaming area with even WFB having 2 GT level events a year) starting a new fantasy army. Anything that produces any kind of movement (and I think AoS will) is a going to up the percentage of Fantasy models purchased. Even with people jumping to KoW. In fact I'd argue that having WFB players jump to KoW might actually increase sales as people round out GW WFB armies to match units in KoW. Possibly making their first purchase in quite some time though that's just a guess.

That's very possible. I've certainly bought some things to round out my army, but they're non-GW (Titan Forge and Gamezone).

JohnHwangDD, I disagree, at least as far as rules go... I play all these games, and my warmahordes friends aren't "page 5" competitive sort. You can have fun with any ruleset, but with AoS, you're actually stuck with silliness for all settings.

That's not as big of a deal as the no points / balance issue, though. I don't think it will make for a game people are willing to invest a lot in long term building up armies like they would with a better ruleset, so while a reboot was sorely needed, I can't think of a way they could have done it that would be as bad as this. The rules read like they made them up while having a few, so it's funny to try, but that's about it...

As a dwarf player, am I really OK that my one wound models are valued the same as my friend's four-wound ogres? Or a small dwarf character is the same as a Bloodthirster? I can have fun without a company "forcing" me to by not balancing their units in any way lol.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
AOS is a TMIR game, where the result ("winning") is far less important than the process ("playing").

Win or lose, playing the game is less fun with idiotic, arbitrary, and obnoxious rules like these.

That's an opinion, as would be any claim that hinges on a value of "fun".

This means that it cannot be used as a premise to conclude a fact, such as "This game is badly designed."

It can only be used to conclude another opinion, such as "I don't like the way this game is designed."

Aos is badly designed - it's a fact. A well-designed game builds upon a firm set of rules that leaves little to no room for mistakenly understood rules (interpretation) and allows player to meet on an even level. AoS doesn't fulfill that criteria. Despite its relatively short release, it already has a few loopholes / blank spaces in the rules, house rules are required to be able to play the game and parts of the rules are even missing at that point. That makes it a badly designed game on an objective scale of things.

Does this mean that it's not enjoyable? Of course not. Many badly designed things have been enjoyed by people in the past, be it video games, technical devices, etc. Noone wants to tell anyone else that they're stupid for not liking something (rather the opposite is the case, i.e. fanboys hating others...but alas). A lot of people just dislike the rules because they are, objectively badly designed.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
AOS is a TMIR game, where the result ("winning") is far less important than the process ("playing").

Win or lose, playing the game is less fun with idiotic, arbitrary, and obnoxious rules like these.

That's an opinion, as would be any claim that hinges on a value of "fun".

This means that it cannot be used as a premise to conclude a fact, such as "This game is badly designed."

It can only be used to conclude another opinion, such as "I don't like the way this game is designed."

Aos is badly designed - it's a fact. A well-designed game builds upon a firm set of rules that leaves little to no room for mistakenly understood rules (interpretation) and allows player to meet on an even level. AoS doesn't fulfill that criteria. Despite its relatively short release, it already has a few loopholes / blank spaces in the rules, house rules are required to be able to play the game and parts of the rules are even missing at that point. That makes it a badly designed game on an objective scale of things.

Does this mean that it's not enjoyable? Of course not. Many badly designed things have been enjoyed by people in the past, be it video games, technical devices, etc. Noone wants to tell anyone else that they're stupid for not liking something (rather the opposite is the case, i.e. fanboys hating others...but alas). A lot of people just dislike the rules because they are, objectively badly designed.

I don't see any loopholes or blank spaces - everything works out AFAIK. I certainly just played a game without house rules.

nevermind

Im going to echo the users who are not happy with this and are out. To those who say they don't understand why or judge us for saying it be aware. We have our rights to hate these changes as much as you have the rights to embrace them.

Its all about how you approach the game. I'm in the group that walks back out when they see people jumping around like idiots shouting waggghhh and comparing beard lengths, its not everyone's idea of fun. Im sure its going to bring in a load of rich kids making their parents buy all the latest stuff though so good on them but as others have said.

I'm not going to be a part of been made a fool for the sake of children customers. To those who say we don't know how to have fun, fun is different to all people. This at least to me is just cringy rather than fun. Fun is just a good game where the imposable roll happens or something unexpected goes down but I don't want to have to play duck duck goose to see it happen.

I am very confident these are for older models only. Almost a fluffy goodbye to them (as ill judged as some of these are). We house-ruled them out straight away.

I started this hobby with WHFB in early 7th. I took a break with 8th due to price hikes. I have recently started WH40K, Its bothering me that this rule set is probably making its way to 40k as we speak. My personal problems with this rule set is that I prefer more serious games, im not a WAAC player, i use bad units because I like them. Most of my games are pick up games at various game shops, this new system makes that impossible. From the "childish, im sorry but I cannot find a better adjective to use" rules to the complete lack of balance it makes finding pick up games impossible for ME. Half the fun I get from wargames is making lists and using tactics. Both are not supported with this new "fun" direction GW is taking with its products.

It kinda reeks tome of yet another excuse for the studio to not write good rules.

Edit, I have never played a tournament and never plan to. So I guess the whole "only tournament players are mad" tripe is just that, tripe.

This is probably just me, but I can't imagine that many school warhammer clubs are going to be able to continue based on these rules.

Normally throwing insults as other children is called bullying and is generally frowned upon, so a game that encourages it ...

ie there goes their target audience as well as the old guard

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
Im going to echo the users who are not happy with this and are out. To those who say they don't understand why or judge us for saying it be aware. We have our rights to hate these changes as much as you have the rights to embrace them.

Its all about how you approach the game. I'm in the group that walks back out when they see people jumping around like idiots shouting waggghhh and comparing beard lengths, its not everyone's idea of fun. Im sure its going to bring in a load of rich kids making their parents buy all the latest stuff though so good on them but as others have said.

I'm not going to be a part of been made a fool for the sake of children customers. To those who say we don't know how to have fun, fun is different to all people. This at least to me is just cringy rather than fun. Fun is just a good game where the imposable roll happens or something unexpected goes down but I don't want to have to play duck duck goose to see it happen.

here is the problem with your statement, first you say more or less that we are all equal in the idea of liking this and hating this which is fair, each gamer is unique and each one plays for his own "fun which is a great non biased statement that we should all embrace"... then you go and say "this is a children game now (more or less what you mean)"... which basically says to all the other people "you are children for liking it, I am going to play an adult game with dragons and goblins"

which just makes me imagine you fluffing your fedora every night


---
as you said, everyone has their own version of "fun"... so stop hating the people who think this is fun stop calling them children for playing a childrens game

But some people, like myself, enjoy winning. Not to the extent that they have to do everything possible in order to do so, but enough that they get enjoyment out of doing their best to try and out-think their opponent, within the constraints of the rules, in order to do their best to win. It's the same reason why, although I like playing cards, I don't enjoy playing Irish Snap. You can't win that game and, yes, it is fun, but I'd much rather be playing something which is, in my eyes, equally fun, but with the added enjoyment of trying to better your opponent(s). AoS, with its lack of balancing, does not give me that latter enjoyment.

bitethythumb wrote:

as you said, everyone has their own version of "fun"... so stop hating the people who think this is fun stop calling them children for playing a childrens game

Yes everyone has different opinions on whats fun, I view that kind of fun childish. It is still well within what I said about everyone having their own opinion. It is my right to see certain types of fun in a certain light personally as much as it is anyone else to see that type of fun a different way.

I see jumping around shouting out things and kneeling down to win a round as childish.
If someone else sees that as just fun and not childish thats their rights too, fun is in the eye of the beholder, neither is wrong. I happen to fall one side, someone might fall on the other.
All it does is effect what we do with this new system now.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Aos is badly designed - it's a fact. A well-designed game builds upon a firm set of rules that leaves little to no room for mistakenly understood rules (interpretation) and allows player to meet on an even level. AoS doesn't fulfill that criteria. Despite its relatively short release, it already has a few loopholes / blank spaces in the rules, house rules are required to be able to play the game and parts of the rules are even missing at that point. That makes it a badly designed game on an objective scale of things.

Does this mean that it's not enjoyable? Of course not. Many badly designed things have been enjoyed by people in the past, be it video games, technical devices, etc. Noone wants to tell anyone else that they're stupid for not liking something (rather the opposite is the case, i.e. fanboys hating others...but alas). A lot of people just dislike the rules because they are, objectively badly designed.

Please specify these loopholes and blank spaces. From what I see AOS doesn't have any obvious issues if played as intended.

If you are playing against the designer's intent, then that is your problem for not adapting the rules to your peculiar play practices.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

as you said, everyone has their own version of "fun"... so stop hating the people who think this is fun stop calling them children for playing a childrens game

Yes everyone has different opinions on whats fun, I view that kind of fun childish. It is still well within what I said about everyone having their own opinion. It is my right to see certain types of fun in a certain light personally as much as it is anyone else to see that type of fun a different way.

I see jumping around shouting out things and kneeling down to win a round as childish.
If someone else sees that as just fun and not childish thats their rights too, fun is in the eye of the beholder, neither is wrong. I happen to fall one side, someone might fall on the other.
All it does is effect what we do with this new system now.

I see people who are serious about a game of goblins and dragons that they think is "tactical" as silly and anal... seeing them get angry or mad for failing a dice roll is both sad and childish in my eyes... having an epic mustache is epic though... seems to me like you do not have a mustache... seriously though, was warhammer 8th in your eyes and adult game? and not childish because they did not have role-playing elements to it? do you not have the ability to "ignore" the rules you deem "childish" or do you need the big GW to hold your hand and tell you how to play your game of goblins and dragons because it has always and always will be a childish game... no matter what edition.

ShaneTB wrote:
I am very confident these are for older models only. Almost a fluffy goodbye to them (as ill judged as some of these are). We house-ruled them out straight away.

good point. I wasn't expecting any "beard rules" for new models/units, either.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


If you are playing against the designer's intent, then that is your problem for not adapting the rules to your peculiar play practices.

Intend and execution are two vastly different things. Michael Bay certainly wants to make "good" movies. Does that make those good movies?

Flaws have been pointed out in the previous threads multiple times. Incompletion of rules, particular loopholes (e.g. "rolling" the 13 with the Bell), etc.

Opponent takes Settra.

'Accidentally' drop a dice under the table that rolls to his feet.

He is a true gent and kneels to pick up your die for you.

Then he auto looses hahah


I like these stupid rules, they are mostly in units that either no one took or the benefits are so small it doesn't really matter.

bitethythumb wrote:

I see people who are serious about a game of goblins and dragons that they think is "tactical" as silly and anal... seeing them get angry or mad for failing a dice roll is both sad and childish in my eyes... having an epic mustache is epic though... seems to me like you do not have a mustache... seriously though, was warhammer 8th in your eyes and adult game? and not childish because they did not have role-playing elements to it? do you not have the ability to "ignore" the rules you deem "childish" or do you need the big GW to hold your hand and tell you how to play your game of goblins and dragons because it has always and always will be a childish game... no matter what edition.

Well thats your opinion to have.

And my right to disagree.

 XT-1984 wrote:
Opponent takes Settra.

'Accidentally' drop a dice under the table that rolls to his feet.

He is a true gent and kneels to pick up your die for you.

Then he auto looses hahah


I like these stupid rules, they are mostly in units that either no one took or the benefits are so small it doesn't really matter.

Opponent takes Sittra. Kick his knees. Autowin!