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.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 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.

Michael Bay makes movies, movies are made for profit, Michael Bay makes a lot of profit therefore Michael Bay makes good movies....

bitethythumb wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 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.

Michael Bay makes movies, movies are made for profit, Michael Bay makes a lot of profit therefore Michael Bay makes good movies....

Indeed I like some of his movies - they are good if you like them, bad if you don't - its entirely a matter of opinion - like if AOS's "silly rules are "fun".

 doktor_g wrote:

 Brotherjanus wrote:
These rules are GW giving the finger to people that want to play a serious tournament game. I think they are awesome.

We will see who gives who the finger when GW reports its earnings July 28th..... Gonna buy some shares, expecting a bump? You do that... If able, I would short a boatload....

Unfortunately we won't see the results of this endeavour until next year. GW's financial year runs from June 1st-May 31st

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I love these rules, because they aren't mandatory.

Show me where it says this. Go on, I'll wait.

 Mr Morden wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 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.

Michael Bay makes movies, movies are made for profit, Michael Bay makes a lot of profit therefore Michael Bay makes good movies....

Indeed I like some of his movies - they are good if you like them, bad if you don't - its entirely a matter of opinion - like if AOS's "silly rules are "fun".

the amazing thing is that as adults we have evolved the ability to ignore the rules we do not like as we can ignore the movies we do not like... some people seem to have forgotten that ability of ours, Darwin is crying :(... I for one live roleplaying and will encourage myself and my drunk posse to act more stupid during gaming as well as increase nudity and nigh homo erotic wrestling... because Slaanesh.

bitethythumb wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 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.

Michael Bay makes movies, movies are made for profit, Michael Bay makes a lot of profit therefore Michael Bay makes good movies....

Popularity of something is not indicative of quality.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 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.

I believe that Bay does an excellent job at making the movie that he intends. None better. Judged against that, and considering the box office takes, his movies *are* good. End of discussion.

No, I think a proper enumeration of actual loopholes is warranted, not merely "it's not the same as WFB8".

 Grimtuff wrote:

 doktor_g wrote:

 Brotherjanus wrote:
These rules are GW giving the finger to people that want to play a serious tournament game. I think they are awesome.

We will see who gives who the finger when GW reports its earnings July 28th..... Gonna buy some shares, expecting a bump? You do that... If able, I would short a boatload....

Unfortunately we won't see the results of this endeavour until next year. GW's financial year runs from June 1st-May 31st

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I love these rules, because they aren't mandatory.

Show me where it says this. Go on, I'll wait.

#

page 20... white dwarf... and I quote word for word.

"The most important rule"

"In a game as detailed nd wide-ranging as warhammer age of sigmar, there may be times when you are not sure exactly how to resolve a situation that has come up during play. When this happens, have a quick chat with your opponent, and apply the solution that makes the most sense to you both (or seems the most fun!). If no single solution presents itself, both of you should roll a dice, and whoever rolls highers gets to choose what happens. Then you can get on with the fighting."

OR IN SHORT... behave like adults and talk it out without having them to hold your hand like a child.

bitethythumb wrote:

OR IN SHORT... behave like adults and talk it out without having them to hold your hand like a child.

Since when was having set conditions for situations hand holding, I mean how would that play out in tournament style games.
Imagine in Chess if we could just go with our gut when we wanted to win. Im sorry but making vague rules because you can't make good rules isn't them making it fun for all. Its just leaving gaps in the rules and expecting the players to fill it in when we come across a basic 'plot hole' of rules. It is after all what they get paid to do. I mean pretty much goes against the meaning of rules:

Rules: "One or a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particular area of activity."

Saying act like adults because people don't like vague make it up yourself rules, is like calling people who like their instruction manuals to have accurate information on how to build their couch as 'people who need their hand holding entitled whiners'

bitethythumb wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Show me where it says this. Go on, I'll wait.

#

page 20... white dwarf... and I quote word for word.

"The most important rule"

"In a game as detailed nd wide-ranging as warhammer age of sigmar, there may be times when you are not sure exactly how to resolve a situation that has come up during play. When this happens, have a quick chat with your opponent, and apply the solution that makes the most sense to you both (or seems the most fun!). If no single solution presents itself, both of you should roll a dice, and whoever rolls highers gets to choose what happens. Then you can get on with the fighting."

OR IN SHORT... behave like adults and talk it out without having them to hold your hand like a child.

Nothing about the stupid rules is ambiguous, and is NOT covered by that.

Even if you did use that... Oh great, on a 4+ I have to now dance like a prick.

If you don't want to dance you can either not use The Masque.

Don't dance and don't get the rerolls.

Or just man up and dance your heart out.

 Grimtuff wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:

Show me where it says this. Go on, I'll wait.

#

page 20... white dwarf... and I quote word for word.

"The most important rule"

"In a game as detailed nd wide-ranging as warhammer age of sigmar, there may be times when you are not sure exactly how to resolve a situation that has come up during play. When this happens, have a quick chat with your opponent, and apply the solution that makes the most sense to you both (or seems the most fun!). If no single solution presents itself, both of you should roll a dice, and whoever rolls highers gets to choose what happens. Then you can get on with the fighting."

OR IN SHORT... behave like adults and talk it out without having them to hold your hand like a child.

Nothing about the stupid rules is ambiguous, and is NOT covered by that.

Even if you did use that... Oh great, on a 4+ I have to now dance like a prick.

the "most important" rule applies to before and during the game itself, ask your GW manager... so if you do not like the jumping around rule, talk with your opponent, tell him your reasons, figure something out and if he refuses... stop playing and find another opponent, over time no one will play with the prancing pony... also notice that the most important rule says "situations" and not "rules" so there is no ambiguity of the rules... only situations which include whether or not to accept the silly role-playing rules, which I by the way like

For all of the AoS supporters who are getting defensive about its detractors calling the game :childish", I suggest you do the following. Take a copy of the rules, show it to any sane and competent person over the age of 21 and ask if they find it "childish". I think you will be upset by the answer.
What it really comes down to is that the game has made a huge change in both tone and play. Some like it for various reasons, others hate it and most people just dont care. What you are getting on this thread is people from the love/hate camps which will never see eye to eye on the subject. Both parties are rather passionate at the moment for many reasons. But the success or failure of AoS will not hang on either group. It will hang on the actions of the people in the middle, the ones not on this thread.

I myself am a bit more at ease after browising several websites and seeing 90% of the WH40K player base would view these changes in a negative light. It keeps my hope up AoS wont infect WH40k.

Table wrote:

For all of the AoS supporters who are getting defensive about its detractors calling the game :childish", I suggest you do the following. Take a copy of the rules, show it to any sane and competent person over the age of 21 and ask if they find it "childish". I think you will be upset by the answer.
What it really comes down to is that the game has made a huge change in both tone and play. Some like it for various reasons, others hate it and most people just dont care. What you are getting on this thread is people from the love/hate camps which will never see eye to eye on the subject. Both parties are rather passionate at the moment for many reasons. But the success or failure of AoS will not hang on either group. It will hang on the actions of the people in the middle, the ones not on this thread.

I myself am a bit more at ease after browising several websites and seeing 90% of the WH40K player base would view these changes in a negative light. It keeps my hope up AoS wont infect WH40k.

I did that once and the person looked at me and said "why the hell are you playing with little toy monsters" so I ran back home and cried my eyes out painting my little toy monsters, my tears gave the paint job a nice hue of "blue"

You know, I think the same thing about Cards Against Humanity... and whenever I point that out all of my sane, competent, adult friends tell me that's the fun of it.

And then we have a good time.

These same friends wouldn't call AoS childish because the rules are too complex

Table wrote:

For all of the AoS supporters who are getting defensive about its detractors calling the game :childish", I suggest you do the following. Take a copy of the rules, show it to any sane and competent person over the age of 21 and ask if they find it "childish". I think you will be upset by the answer.

You try doing it with a copy of 8th edition, or 40k, or Warmachine, or Infinity, or Flames of War... I think you'll get the exact same answer.

 Brotherjanus wrote:
These rules are GW giving the finger to people that want to play a serious tournament game. I think they are awesome.

Cause alienating any of your customers is great.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If you are playing against the designer's intent

Writer intent is irrelevant when it comes to fiction. The actual produced work is what matters, and what it can be judged by.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That's an opinion

No really, you finally figured out what an opinion is, congratulations.

 XT-1984 wrote:
If you don't want to dance you can either not use The Masque.

If you don't want me to point out that the rules are obnoxiously stupid, stop defending them as if you're pretending they're not obnoxiously stupid.

Well Melissia if a couple of special rules in a game of toy soldiers really upsets you, I think you should count your blessings.

Besides, everything is optional. I'm sure if you ask your opponent nicely they will gladly let you use the rules if it means that much to you.

If you were playing me I would be fair meet you half way and say you can have your rerolls if your legs are hairier than mine.

bitethythumb wrote:

 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.

Brother, you have very limited "street cred" on Dakka to be calling people out like this. People (adults) have spent THOUSANDS of Dollars, Euroes, and Pounds on this game. This represents a sea change on what attracted folks to this originally. GW was THE HANDS DOWN LEADER in TTWG. They are surrendering market share here. It is a complete ABANDONING of a business plan that made them the the 3rd largest game producer in the world (distantly 3rd behind Hasbro and Mattel).

I am talking business here as a fething adult. This is financial suicide. I can't think of a company that has knowingly abandoned a previously successful business model, while bragging "we don't do market research", and SIMULTANEOUSLY alienating their largest consumer demographic. Kirby out by 2017, leaving GW in shambles and loss of IP to some hedge fund. Plus golden parachute. Mark my words.

You joined yesterday did you?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


I believe that Bay does an excellent job at making the movie that he intends. None better. Judged against that, and considering the box office takes, his movies *are* good. End of discussion.

You don't get the point and thus make the exact same mistake again. What you like doesn't matter. What I like doesn't matter. We're...I am referring to objective standards here. As stated before, with AoS, people will like it. That's super okay and I don't think anyone wants to get in their way. Objectively, they're bad. Hands down.They are incomplete, they don't have a balance mechanism of any sort and they require house-ruling to be playable. That's objectively bad for a game. What you like or not is not up for debate.

 doktor_g wrote:
I am talking business here as a fething adult. This is financial suicide. I can't think of a company that has knowingly abandoned a previously successful business model, while bragging "we don't do market research", and SIMULTANEOUSLY alienating their largest consumer demographic. Kirby out by 2017, leaving GW in shambles and loss of IP to some hedge fund. Plus golden parachute. Mark my words.

If you think that bitter old Fantasy players were GW's largest demographic up until yesterday, you really are in no position to lecture anyone about business

Table wrote:

For all of the AoS supporters who are getting defensive about its detractors calling the game :childish", I suggest you do the following. Take a copy of the rules, show it to any sane and competent person over the age of 21 and ask if they find it "childish". I think you will be upset by the answer.

I think if you were take any set of mandolly, RPG or party game rules to a person over the age of 21, they will find it "childish", and that answer would be FINE BY ME.

Games should be fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


I believe that Bay does an excellent job at making the movie that he intends. None better. Judged against that, and considering the box office takes, his movies *are* good. End of discussion.

You don't get the point and thus make the exact same mistake again. What you like doesn't matter. What I like doesn't matter. We're...I am referring to objective standards here. As stated before, with AoS, people will like it. That's super okay and I don't think anyone wants to get in their way. Objectively, they're bad. Hands down.They are incomplete, they don't have a balance mechanism of any sort and they require house-ruling to be playable. That's objectively bad for a game. What you like or not is not up for debate.

It is objectively stupid for you to claim that "balance" is somehow required.

 Grimtuff wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 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.

Michael Bay makes movies, movies are made for profit, Michael Bay makes a lot of profit therefore Michael Bay makes good movies....

Popularity of something is not indicative of quality.

nope, but it sure is an indication of success...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doktor_g wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 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.

Brother, you have very limited "street cred" on Dakka to be calling people out like this. People (adults) have spent THOUSANDS of Dollars, Euroes, and Pounds on this game. This represents a sea change on what attracted folks to this originally. GW was THE HANDS DOWN LEADER in TTWG. They are surrendering market share here. It is a complete ABANDONING of a business plan that made them the the 3rd largest game producer in the world (distantly 3rd behind Hasbro and Mattel).

I am talking business here as a fething adult. This is financial suicide. I can't think of a company that has knowingly abandoned a previously successful business model, while bragging "we don't do market research", and SIMULTANEOUSLY alienating their largest consumer demographic. Kirby out by 2017, leaving GW in shambles and loss of IP to some hedge fund. Plus golden parachute. Mark my words.

You joined yesterday did you?

well I have been a warhammer player and fan since 1996 and I do have an older dakka account I just forgot the password and most likely my email has changed and I do not remember my account name at that, I also have a warseer account and had an old GW forum account before it got closed down.... cause I had a period of "getting on with life" for several years, AoS got me back in though... and let be clear here, fantasy was dying, 40k is what is making GW money, and I have been hearing "GW is going to die" for years now... still has not happened and will not happen... funnily GW could have just ended fantasy and focused on 40k which is there number one money maker and that would be A SMART BUSINESS MOVE but no, they want to try and reinvent fantasy for the new generation.

People who invested thousands into tiny toy monsters should have been fully aware of the risks, no one forced them to buy anything and no one promised them a "game for life" which would also be a stupid business movie... heck I lived through WOOD elves and BRETS not getting an army book for years, I lived through the death of Inquisitor etc...

as an ADULT you should realise that keeping fantasy alive and promising a game for life are both RISKY AND STUPID business moves that do more harm than good, fantasy should be dead but because GW cares (a little) it stayed alive...because lets be honest, if GW just ended fantasy tomorrow, nothing would happen to them, they would just refocus on 40k and sell more :/

by the way, its very childish to disregard my opinion because I am "new"... I am an OLD GW fan... just because I have not been as active on DAKKA does in no way invalidate my opinion.... i

I realize that AoS is an extremely polarizing release but...

...RULE #1 EVERYONE - ALL THE TIME.

Thanks!

 JohnHwangDD wrote:



It is objectively stupid for you to claim that "balance" is somehow required.

Seeing that you not only dodge the point, but also resort to personal insults, I consider your point withdrawn. Glad we got that settled.

THIS POST WAS EDITED

THIS POST WAS EDITED

PREVIOUS VERSION ABOVE

/e (=edit): Arf, saw Alpharius post too late.

Dude, you're the one who's mad that the screwdriver isn't a hammer...

 XT-1984 wrote:
Well Melissia if a couple of special rules in a game of toy soldiers really upsets you

My disliking the rules should not offend you enough that you feel the need to resort to "oh she's just emotional and upset" fallacious tripe.

The reasoning behind my disliking the rules is perfectly clear and logical. If you have no argument against it and have to resort to this crap, just admit I'm right rather than trying to drag this out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Dude, you're the one who's mad that the screwdriver isn't a hammer...

You're clearly not Orky enough. Everything's a hammer if you hit it against the nail hard enough.

Jokes aside, I find your opinion to be asinine and baseless. These are supposed to be professional writers, not fanfic authors.

 Alpharius wrote:
I realize that AoS is an extremely polarizing release but...

...RULE #1 EVERYONE - ALL THE TIME.

Thanks!

Do not talk about AoS?

Well, Ms. Asinine & Baseless, it's a darn good thing for you that GW is reading this thread and they're going to take your complaint Very, Very Seriously (tm).

You fail to have a point in that last post, never mind actually make one.

Whether or not GW is listening does not change the validity of what I have said.