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 am of the conclusion that it is pointless to continue "discussion" here. The funny rules are still funny, and I still applaud GW for making the game that they want.

 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.

I played a game today and it didn't require houseruling. It also was unbalanced, which was fine with both myself and my opponent. So I don't think they're bad, because what makes rules "bad" according to you is different from what makes rules "bad" according to me.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I am of the conclusion that it is pointless to continue "discussion" here.

Then stop having it? No one is forcing you to post here.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The unfunny rules are still unfunny

Fixed that for you

 RiTides wrote:

 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.

The problem with complaining about the lack of a points balancing system is that some of the best made games in wargaming history lack such a thing. I don't particularly like AoS, but balance should be provided in scenario design. The provided scenario is a perfectly good way to learn the rules, after that players can and should use their imaginations to come up with ideas.

On the main subject, these rules are asinine. If I'm playing a campaign with my friends, we don't need rules about kneeling and insults. If we are drunk enough to be screaming challenges at one another, I doupt we'll be able to remember to reroll. These rules will either be ignored or always used.

At my place we are probably going to make it optional, all rules that require something of age/facial-hair are going to be a d2 though.

 Melissia wrote:
Everything's a hammer if you hit it against the nail hard enough.

Or rather everything is a nail if you only have a hammer.

On that note, can folks please simmer down now. Rule One around these parts is Be Polite. Yes, even when GW has a big release. Thanks!

 Manchu wrote:
On that note, can folks please simmer down now. Rule One around these parts is Be Polite. Yes, even when GW has a big release. Thanks!

And yet we're talking about a game which explicitly encourages you to insult your opponent.

Encourages you once.
For one model in the entire game.
And afaik no one has defended that rule's existence or said it's the best rule ever.

While we are talking about that game... we aren't playing it, so no need to try and get Wulfrik's re-rolls.

None of the games with silly, asinine rules that I can think of cost hundreds of dollars and take hundreds of hours to prepare the tokens to play. In short, party games don't cost GW prices and aren't build, paint and play.

Comparing AoS to Munchkin and Cards Against Humanity is pointless and a bit silly because neither of these games require the money and time input. For me, and possibly others as well, I expect a bit more from something that I have to put so much of my personal time and resources into; a silly board game or card game requires nothing more than pulling the tokens and apparatus out of the box and playing; AoS at a minimum requires you to build the models and much more if you want to paint them.

"Here, buy this $60 model, then spend 20 hours lovingly assembling it and painting it, now go act like an absolute idiot in order to use its special ability."

No thanks and I dare anyone to point to another game that would require that level of pecuniary and time input with such a ludicrous output.

Let's see how successful CAH and Munchkin would be if they charged $125 for the starter and more later for supplements. That's the mentality here.

It's sad and it makes me think that the GW design team have really lost touch with who the majority of their market is.

I always hated some of the more... enthusastic aspectsof gaming. Shouting WAAAGH at Games Day, accents during RPGS, whatever.

Some people find it fun, some don't, but I think for me I don't like the idea of "mandatory fun," the sort of attitude that you can be compelled to have fun. I also don't like arbitrary rules: things to have results unrelated to true chance, skill, or anything that can be managed or controlled.

Games like that have their place, as many in this thread have pointed out.. But people built WFB armies for a very different game, and it's not a shock they'd be bummed out by the complete shift in tone and genre of the game.

Some people like the new game, and that's great, but mocking people that saw literally thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of work lose enormous personal value is just churlish.

I don't think anyone is mocking them.

I just think their rage and unveiled hatred is unwarranted.

If the game is that bad, then 8th Ed. Fantasy won't die out. If the game isn't that bad, then why all the unrestrained vehemence?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't think anyone is mocking them.

I just think their rage and unveiled hatred is unwarranted.

If the game is that bad, then 8th Ed. Fantasy won't die out. If the game isn't that bad, then why all the unrestrained vehemence?

Unsupported games die. They always do. Sure, a few guys might keep it alive in a garage, or at a major con, but you lose all new blood when a game goes unsupported. Even massively popular games with major fan based support are barely on life support: things like Epic 40k, Mordheim, Necromunda, or BFG. And they at least had token support from GW for years after their salad days. So lets not pretend that 8th edition WFB is going to be the exception to that rule. (Side bar: one possible exception is Pathfinder, which effectively was D&D 3.75 or something, when everybody hated 4th. Of course, Pathfinder is a professional product, supported by new releases, still distinct from D&D 3.5, and officially licensed.)

And even if the rage and hatred is, in your very personal opinion, unwarranted, what of it? Do you think telling people how they should feel helps?

Would it not be more noble to allow people some cathartic venting of emotion?

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
And afaik no one has defended that rule's existence or said it's the best rule ever.

People in this thread have said the rules are good. I agree no insults are necessary. But this part isn't true

At first i thought GW is going to make a game with the "easy to learn hard to master" philosophy which made me interested in whfb the first time ever.

After reading the rules and the comments about them i came to the conclusion that its more of a "easy to play hard to balance" philosophy which let me down a lot and killed my interest in the game. I will of course play some test games to be sure about it but im already foresee what will happen.

The silly rules are just the icing on the cake. We're a group of grown ups. Maybe playing with toy soldiers make uns kinda childish in general. But thats the kind of childishness i still like. If i want to have fun by acting like an idiot i simply buy some drugs.

Regarding unsupported games, I agree, they always dwindle away... the only exception I can think of in wargaming to a certain extent is Bloodbowl. I'm always amazed how many Indiegogo campaigns and the like there are to make crazy teams. I get the feeling it might be more popular internationally than in the US? Kind of jealous of that, actually!

8th dying out isn't really dependent on AoS being good or bad - without support from GW, and with such a high barrier to entry due to model costs and all the army books being OOP, it most definitely will... I'm switching to Kings of War and not looking back . I've seen others who are looking at Darklands (Mierce) and I'm sure there will be a subset who continue to play 8th ed. But for me, I want to go with what I can most easily find a game / tournament in 5 years from now, and I'm betting on Kings of War since I at least know the company is intending to support it... and there's at least one Dakkanaut near me who plays it now (Polonius!).

In my view WHFB already was dieing out because such a lot of players stopped it when GW published 8th edition. Certainly it is difficult to believe that GW would have dropped a financially successful product given their continuing decline in sales year on year.

 RiTides wrote:
I want to go with what I can most easily find a game / tournament in 5 years from now, and I'm betting on Kings of War since I at least know the company is intending to support it...

Like you and others around here im choosing this point to jump the warhammer ship. I might casually collect 40k till they change that system completely like they did this one but Ive got my eyes set on Kings of war or War machine right now. Hell with not having to spend all that money on overpriced GW products might even invest in that Star wars Armada game.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In my view WHFB already was dieing out because such a lot of players stopped it when GW published 8th edition. Certainly it is difficult to believe that GW would have dropped a financially successful product given their continuing decline in sales year on year.

Given how big the market for their miniatures by non-players is supposed to be, I guess this isn't surprising. Make a game that can be played, come up with some basic rules in a long weekend, make 'em free, and go back to selling models.

Looking back at the Pathfinder model, though, I do wish they would allow another company to make the rules for the game.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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

If I want to play a roleplaying game, I'll just go and do that.

However, when I play Warhammer, I want to play a miniatures game.

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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

If I want to play a roleplaying game, I'll just go and do that.

However, when I play Warhammer, I want to play a miniatures game.

so play a miniature game but ignore those silly "abilities"... no one is forcing you to obey those rules to its core and I am pretty certain people who played 8th also edited some rules so that it was fair and made more sense... and just FYI those are "special" rules of heroes, not in the rulebook... you can LITERALLY ignore them, just fade them out, write over them etc... it will not affect the actual game in ANY way.. if someone tells you "BUT I WANT TO OBEY THOSE ABILITIES FOR THE HERO" tell them "can we not, I really do not want to" and if they refuse, find someone else to "play with"

Rather sad, WHFB used to be more "tactical" than 40k.

Seeing what the game has evolved into is really like pressing "restart": what existing players bought into is no-more, GW are now looking for a new player base. Good luck with no advertising and a rather angry veteran player base.

I am glad kings of war is around to take up the slack or the rage would have been a lot worse.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I played a game today and it didn't require houseruling.

I can say the same thing about every single game of 8th I've played, actually.

 Polonius wrote:
I always hated some of the more... enthusastic aspectsof gaming. Shouting WAAAGH at Games Day, accents during RPGS, whatever.

Some people find it fun, some don't, but I think for me I don't like the idea of "mandatory fun," the sort of attitude that you can be compelled to have fun. I also don't like arbitrary rules: things to have results unrelated to true chance, skill, or anything that can be managed or controlled.

Games like that have their place, as many in this thread have pointed out.. But people built WFB armies for a very different game, and it's not a shock they'd be bummed out by the complete shift in tone and genre of the game.

Some people like the new game, and that's great, but mocking people that saw literally thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of work lose enormous personal value is just churlish.

those "shout waaaagh" are not rules but abilities which can be ignored by using cognitive reasoning... no one is forcing "mandatory" fun, if you go to a games DAY I am sure like all other game days they have their own rules and regulations, I remember very clearly some tournies did not allow certain models or armies etc.. that can easily be applied to this game... by simple wording "These abilities/champion are not allowed to be used"... and done, no problem there.

if you also notice, most of the "funny" role-play rules are attached to characters from the old world, I assume they did so because they will in time be phased out for new FRESH faces with more serious take on things.

---
Personally I like those rules because they add a little RPG to a miniature game and I love RPGs (d&d days), is it tournament worthy, I doubt it... but then as repeated 1000s of times, tournaments can alter the rules/abilities/units to suit their "flavour" of gaming.

bitethythumb wrote:
Personally I like those rules because they add a little RPG to a miniature game and I love RPGs (d&d days),

I love RPGs, too(currently playing in Werewolf, Pathfinder, and IKRPG campaigns, scheduling is hectic to say the least) and if people wanna do this stuff during games for roleplay, more power to 'em.

They still shouldn't be actual rules.

 Talizvar wrote:
Rather sad, WHFB used to be more "tactical" than 40k.

Seeing what the game has evolved into is really like pressing "restart": what existing players bought into is no-more, GW are now looking for a new player base. Good luck with no advertising and a rather angry veteran player base.

I am glad kings of war is around to take up the slack or the rage would have been a lot worse.

they really had no choice, warhammer was a dieing game that was not selling... they could have just scrapped fantasy and focused on 40k and that would have made more financial sense but at least they are "trying" to restart the franchise, sure its very "simple" at the moment but GW is about making good quality miniatures which they are most of the time leaders (the new minis look amazing).. AoS allows for users to focus more on the collecting aspect of the game (which has always been the main part of the hobby, do not kid yourself its all about the painting and conversions) rather than the gaming which is not bad if you ask me, its surely different but as we all know in a year at most they will release another book with more rules and then another and another and in time it will grow into a more tactical game but the whole point will be that YOU CAN CHOOSE if you want it to be tactical in nature or fun beer RPG style.

More or less GW just said

"ok lets start from the ground up fellas"

their miniature are still amazing and that is where most of their sales will come from and in time their fantasy line will be more adaptable to suit MORE users needs, if you still want to play 8th, 7th, 6th etc.. nothing stops you... the rules are still in your hands

Heard about new fantasy rule set, thought about starting into it.
Saw rules. Said NOPE.

 Platuan4th wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:
Personally I like those rules because they add a little RPG to a miniature game and I love RPGs (d&d days),

I love RPGs, too(currently playing in Werewolf, Pathfinder, and IKRPG campaigns, scheduling is hectic to say the least) and if people wanna do this stuff during games for roleplay, more power to 'em.

They still shouldn't be actual rules.

but they are not rules.. they are special abilities within certain characters... just say "no to these characters" Tournaments have been banning certain characters and units for years, if someone says "I want to use him" tell him why you do not want to play against it etc and if you cannot agree, well then why play against each other?... and remember the "MOST IMPORTANT RULE" talk to your opponent which is an ACTUAL rule.

 Platuan4th wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:
Personally I like those rules because they add a little RPG to a miniature game and I love RPGs (d&d days),

I love RPGs, too(currently playing in Werewolf, Pathfinder, and IKRPG campaigns, scheduling is hectic to say the least) and if people wanna do this stuff during games for roleplay, more power to 'em.

They still shouldn't be actual rules.

QFT. And not all of the silliness is limited to characters. Grail Knights require you to shout "for the lady" or some such nonsense every turn of combat. Yes, we can ignore the stupidity in most cases (obviously, I won't play against someone who is puerile enough to attempt to require me to do such things) it's the fact that I've invested thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours into a miniature wargame that has now been converted into this.....mess (for lack of a better word).

The sad thing is that there is about 30% of a real, functional, potentially fun wargame hidden in there.

niv-mizzet wrote:
Heard about new fantasy rule set, thought about starting into it.
Saw rules. Said NOPE.

they are not rules, they are abilities of certain characters which are not forced for you to use.... the characters nor the abilities.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 agnosto wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:
Personally I like those rules because they add a little RPG to a miniature game and I love RPGs (d&d days),

I love RPGs, too(currently playing in Werewolf, Pathfinder, and IKRPG campaigns, scheduling is hectic to say the least) and if people wanna do this stuff during games for roleplay, more power to 'em.

They still shouldn't be actual rules.

QFT. And not all of the silliness is limited to characters. Grail Knights require you to shout "for the lady" or some such nonsense every turn of combat. Yes, we can ignore the stupidity in most cases (obviously, I won't play against someone who is puerile enough to attempt to require me to do such things) it's the fact that I've invested thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours into a miniature wargame that has now been converted into this.....mess (for lack of a better word).

The sad thing is that there is about 30% of a real, functional, potentially fun wargame hidden in there.

who forced you to invest so much money into the game? and what was GW supposed to do to a dieing game? keep on working on it because a minority (you and others) have invested thousands into it?

 ToxicBox wrote:
On the bright side, basically every unit is viable.

On the dark side, every unit has a cookie cutter version of a unit in a different army


Automatically Appended Next Post:

bitethythumb wrote:
and what was GW supposed to do to a dieing game? keep on working on it because a minority (you and others) have invested thousands into it?

GW was killing it on thier own, yearly price hikes, lack of promoting the game, poor rule sets, ignore current (pre AOS) customer base.

I'll be moving on (as if anyone cared). If I wante dto play skirmish I'd play warmahoards, Wrath of kings, malifaux.