[AOS] The "Beard Rules" Thread

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.

**zerosignal**

This will be amusing, if you have that particular mindset, for a few months.

Eventually the broken p2w will kick in, and you'll look at all the money you spent and realise just how much you've been had.

It seems GW have finally given up.

**Polonius**

bitethythumb wrote:
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.

I'm not sure you know what "rules" means. If a model has an ability, that's a rule. Saying that you can choose not to really get the most out of a model is a bleak choice, but I suppose a technical one.

I don't care overly much, I sold me Fantasy years ago and I'm enjoying the hell out of Kings of War. I've explained why I don't care for it, and while it matters for little, I doubt you'll change my mind.

**agnosto**

bitethythumb wrote:

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?

What a nonsensical point. Are you implying that I should be happy that my investment is no longer of the same perceived value as I held it even a week before? As some have pointed out, I'm in mourning of an old friend, a game that I've spent a great deal of personal time and resources in over the years and has now become unrecognizable.

As others have pointed out, the death of the game is not the customers' fault but the company which made the game; they could have performed some research, discovered what was making the game less attractive when compared to other company's offerings and then fixed them, instead they chose to "throw the baby out with the bath water."

**Polonius**

agnosto wrote:
bitethythumb wrote:

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?

What a nonsensical point. Are you implying that I should be happy that my investment is no longer of the same perceived value as I held it even a week before? As some have pointed out, I'm in mourning of an old friend, a game that I've spent a great deal of personal time and resources in over the years and has now become unrecognizable.

As others have pointed out, the death of the game is not the customers' fault but the company which made the game; they could have performed some research, discovered what was making the game less attractive when compared to other company's offerings and then fixed them, instead they chose to "throw the baby out with the bath water."

Yeah, I don't know what is so absurdly difficult about saying, "that sucks that you've lost the game you like. I'm enjoying it, and I hope you'll find another use for you models, but I feel bad that you won't be able to play the way you used to."

**Rautakanki**

When I first saw the pictures of the Sigmarines and heard that it was going to be a skirmish game, and with something actually happening in the storyline, I was interested, I thought yeah, I could play fantasy space marines in a smaller scale game.

I didn't expect it to be completely troll. A disappointment, but luckily no money or time off me. So sorry that the game got ruined for those who cared.

**Kilkrazy**

If you think AOS will play all right without the Beard Rules, play it without, or house rule that they work without having a Beard.

**Polonius**

Beard rules aren't why people dislike AoS, they're simply a very notorious shift in tone that is easy to harp on.

They also seem very committed to making players not take the game seriously, which while refreshing for some, isn't comforting to people that have taken it seriously.

**Manchu**

Just as a matter of word choice, it is easy to see that AoS is challenging a deeply entrenched POV; one that needs to be challenged and deserves to be. AoS is not for people who take gaming seriously? Ahem, anyone who invests the huge amount of money and time to get minis to the table self-evidently takes gaming seriously. I don't know if it started on the internet or what, but this assumption that competitive gamers are the ones who really take gaming "seriously" is ... myopic and conceited.

**Los pollos hermanos**

Manchu wrote:
one that needs to be challenged and deserves to be.

I'm confused, are those who stick to the values and what we have learnt of the system over the past 20+ now the bad guys for not suddenly changing their deeply rooted and understandable connection to the old fantasy system? I wasn't aware we're running on some kind of adapt or get out rule now AoS dropped as if all the old players are immediately the enemy and the outcasts ruining fantasy for everyone. Fantasy has been out for years, AoS for two days but its the fantasy players been unreasonable when it comes to the change?? You make it out like anyone who sees fantasy through old eyes is somehow toxic to the community and game itself a bad POV as it were. At least thats what im getting from that line, hence my confusion.

I think you need to be a bit more understanding towards those who simply don't wish to or can't throw away how they played the game just overnight after maybe even 20 years.

**Manchu**

Los pollos hermanos wrote:
as if all the old players are immediately the enemy and the outcasts

First, ranting about bad guys and enemies and outcasts ... this is totally misplaced. I am calling out the tendency to confuse a POV with reality. Which brings me to the second point: "old players" is a completely relative term. People did not always play miniatures games with point-based list building geared to competitive pick-up gaming/tournament play. For many miniatures gamers, these concepts are not only relatively new, they are also totally misguided. There are "grognards" who look down on anyone not playing a well-researched historical scenario with period-accurate models down to the colors of regimental uniform facings. For them, whippersnappers writing the most broken pixie warriors list are not "serious gamers." Yep -- that is a condescending POV. So is the idea that the only "serious gamers" out there are ones getting their jollies breaking the pixie warriors army book.

Los pollos hermanos wrote:
I think you need to be a bit more understanding towards those who simply don't wish to or can't throw away how they played the game just overnight after maybe even 20 years.

Whether you throw away your favorite game is up to you and your gaming group.

**Polonius**

Manchu wrote:
Los pollos hermanos wrote:
as if all the old players are immediately the enemy and the outcasts
First, ranting about bad guys and enemies and outcasts ... this is totally misplaced. I am calling out the tendency to confuse a POV with reality. Which brings me to the second point: "old players" is a completely relative term. People did not always play miniatures games with point-based list building geared to competitive pick-up gaming/tournament play. For many miniatures gamers, these concepts are not only relatively new, they are also totally misguided. There are "grognards" who look down on anyone not playing a well-researched historical scenario with period-accurate models down to the colors of regimental uniform facings. For them, whippersnappers writing the most broken pixie warriors list are not "serious gamers." Yep -- that is a condescending POV. So is the idea that the only "serious gamers" out there are ones getting their jollies breaking the pixie warriors army book.
Los pollos hermanos wrote:
I think you need to be a bit more understanding towards those who simply don't wish to or can't throw away how they played the game just overnight after maybe even 20 years.
Whether you throw away your favorite game is up to you and your gaming group.

I dunno... it's been a solid generation of point based games, even for historicals. Add even then, the scenarios were rigorous in their intentional lack of balance.

I think we define "serious" a lot of ways, but I think that when people say that WFB 8 was "serious" while AOS is not is that WFB 8 attempted to at least make the game more than idle amusement. That skill and gamesmanship and, dare I say, tactics were important. AOS is a pretty deliberate attempt to reinforce that the game is not more than a pasttime.

**Manchu**

Miniatures wargaming generally, and not just a game like AoS, is as much an "idle amusement" as anything that takes a huge amount of money, time, and effort can be.

**Unit1126PLL**

There are other games for "serious gamers" and you can even use those thousands of dollars of investment in them.

Why are you so committed to making AoS conform to the requirements of those other games (and earlier editions)?

**Polonius**

Manchu wrote:
Miniatures wargaming generally, and not just a game like AoS, is as much an "idle amusement" as anything that takes a huge amount of money, time, and effort can be.

Sure, if we're comparing it to curing cancer or saving kittens, but not all recreations are idle. Playing soccer in a league and playing FIFA 2015 on the xbox are both recreation, but one has tangible benefits and builds skills, the other is more literally idle.

You can argue it's a different of degree, but not of kind, but Warhammer had a pretty sharp learning curve when it came to learning the tactics of the game. It was a more demanding, and thus more potentially rewarding, pasttime.

**Unit1126PLL**

Polonius wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Miniatures wargaming generally, and not just a game like AoS, is as much an "idle amusement" as anything that takes a huge amount of money, time, and effort can be.

Sure, if we're comparing it to curing cancer or saving kittens, but not all recreations are idle. Playing soccer in a league and playing FIFA 2015 on the xbox are both recreation, but one has tangible benefits and builds skills, the other is more literally idle.

You can argue it's a different of degree, but not of kind, but Warhammer had a pretty sharp learning curve when it came to learning the tactics of the game. It was a more demanding, and thus more potentially rewarding, pasttime.

And there are still games out there that you can use your minis for that are demanding. Why try to shoehorn AoS into that mould?

**agnosto**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
There are other games for "serious gamers" and you can even use those thousands of dollars of investment in them.

Why are you so committed to making AoS conform to the requirements of those other games (and earlier editions)?

What part of This. Just. Happened. is so hard for you to comprehend. Yes, I will eventually take my thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours time to another system but up until Friday of last week, I could have the same with GW. Obviously I can't now but which explains my, and others, "griping".

**Kilkrazy**

I remember the game Panzer Pranks, put out in the 1970s by Chaosium if I recall it correctly. It had comedy rules like being able to save up movement points from turn to turn. Combat resolution was by Paper, Scissors, Stone.

The thing is Panzer Pranks was conceived and named as a parody of serious Avalon Hill games like Panzer Leader. Anyone who played it understood that it was essentially a joke.

The Beard Rules in WHAOS look like a parody of WHFB and a mechanism to force players to caper about jester-like when they actually just want a game of fantasy battles. Which I think is a very ill-conceived idea and has been not unnaturally badly received by a section of the player base.

**Unit1126PLL**

agnosto wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
There are other games for "serious gamers" and you can even use those thousands of dollars of investment in them.

Why are you so committed to making AoS conform to the requirements of those other games (and earlier editions)?

What part of This. Just. Happened. is so hard for you to comprehend. Yes, I will eventually take my thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours time to another system but up until Friday of last week, I could have the same with GW. Obviously I can't now but which explains my, and others, "griping".

I mean, I get that you're in such a state of shock that it is hard for you to move to another system. But griping about it is just delaying your move away to the Promised Land of balance.

**Manchu**

Polonius wrote:
You can argue it's a different of degree, but not of kind, but Warhammer had a pretty sharp learning curve when it came to learning the tactics of the game. It was a more demanding, and thus more potentially rewarding, pasttime.

Couple of issues with this argument. Just generally speaking, games can be "demanding" without being more "rewarding." One way to describe this phenomenon is "inelegance." But more importantly, different kinds of gamers feel "rewarded" by different kinds of play. Just to use broad strokes examples, some people are more rewarded by executing carefully-laid plans while others are more rewarded by tackling developing situations. Some gamers actually feel more rewarded by the gameplay itself then the eventual result.

Kilkrazy wrote:
when they actually just want a game of fantasy battles

They who? This is a tautological argument.

**Polonius**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
And there are still games out there that you can use your minis for that are demanding. Why try to shoehorn AoS into that mould?

I dont' think anybody is trying to shoehorn AOS into a mold, rather, they are upset that AOS is not what they built a collection around. Also:

agnosto wrote:What part of This. Just. Happened. is so hard for you to comprehend. Yes, I will eventually take my thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours time to another system but up until Friday of last week, I could have the same with GW. Obviously I can't now but which explains my, and others, "griping".

It's good to have a clear, rational grasp on the issues of the day. It's an admirable trait.

It's also good to be at least a bit empathetic to others when they are upset.

It's not like AOS is a brand new game, or a parallel product, or an expansion. It's a system that replaces something that a good (albiet dwindling) number of people really enjoyed playing. Cut the people that lost a game they liked a bit of slack.

**Kilkrazy**

Is AOS a comedy game?

It is full of angels versus demons, saving or destroying the world through slaughter and blood. Plus having a beard or singing a song.

What are players meant to think?

**agnosto**

Kilkrazy wrote:
I remember the game Panzer Pranks, put out in the 1970s by Chaosium if I recall it correctly. It had comedy rules like being able to save up movement points from turn to turn. Combat resolution was by Paper, Scissors, Stone.

The thing is Panzer Pranks was conceived and named as a parody of serious Avalon Hill games like Panzer Leader. Anyone who played it understood that it was essentially a joke.

The Beard Rules in WHAOS look like a parody of WHFB and a mechanism to force players to caper about jester-like when they actually just want a game of fantasy battles. Which I think is a very ill-conceived idea and has been not unnaturally badly received by a section of the player base.

Oh come now, who doesn't want to spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours on a game that's a simple farce?

**Polonius**

Manchu wrote:
Polonius wrote:
You can argue it's a different of degree, but not of kind, but Warhammer had a pretty sharp learning curve when it came to learning the tactics of the game. It was a more demanding, and thus more potentially rewarding, pasttime.
Couple of issues with this argument. Just generally speaking, games can be "demanding" without being more "rewarding." One way to describe this phenomenon is "inelegance." But more importantly, different kinds of gamers feel "rewarded" by different kinds of play. Just to use broad strokes examples, some people are more rewarded by executing carefully-laid plans while others are more rewarded by tackling developing situations. Some gamers actually feel more rewarded by the gameplay itself then the eventual result

Well, i said potentially rewarding, but I that doesn't change the fact that not all games are equally idle as pasttimes. And decoupling demand and reward is fine, but I think the less demanding a game is the less overall reward is possible. That's why I said potential reward. But no matter how much you master, say, Munchkin, it's likely to be less rewarding than mastering D&D. If D&D 6th edition were a varient on Munckin, people would be very upset, because the arc of learning/mastering the game is much shorter, or at least very different.

I mean few of these games are serious, but I still contend that arguing that all games are equally frivolous is going to be tough. And AOS appears to be far more frivolous than WFB8.

**Dakkamite**

My new biggest concern has shifted from dancing tomfoolery to nopoints and now to "even without all that this game kinda sucks"

Anyone finding this fun outside the novelty of the sheer wtf factor?

**Manchu**

Kilkrazy wrote:
What are players meant to think?

Da same dey 'az alwayz dun. WAAAAAGH!

Polonius wrote:
If D&D 6th edition were a varient on Munckin, people would be very upset, because the arc of learning/mastering the game is much shorter, or at least very different.

D&D provides a great example. A ton of people were very upset that 5E does not entail the game mastery elements of 3.X/Pathfinder and 4E. Some people are rewarded by digging through supplements to find correct feat progression to make a swinging-from-chandeliers "build." Other players are content to describe their PCs swinging from a chandelier as/when it comes up. I guess the latter is not particularly "demanding" compared to the former. To me, however, it is inestimably more rewarding.

Also, I completely understand why people whose preferred play style is no longer supported by THE COMPANY (GW, WotC, etc, etc) are upset. But ... it's not like some conspiracy against you and people like you. D&D provides another instructive example: when ruleplay became the dominant mode in the late 90s, roleplayers felt pushed out. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Thankfully, Pathfinder is available for people who don't like the older style of D&D that inspired 5E. For a good number of fantasy mass battles, KoW can play a similar role.

**Los pollos hermanos**

After going through a bunch of sites and watching a few battle reports online here and there, reading all the comments, it seems to be leaning unanimously among commenters towards two basic lines I keep hearing:

"Rules are sh**"

and

"Wheres the strategy, first two turns charge, rest of game melee mash in the middle of the board"

I can't imagine hearing these complaints from so many people including those who have played the game that it holds no weight or fact.

**Manchu**

I guess what one finds all depends on who is looking ...

It cannot be denied. We liked this game. We liked it a lot, and we were not really expecting to. Yes, the lack of points is an issue and we will have to come up with something to handle our games if Games Workshop does not (kinda hoping for Scenario Scrolls to make an appearance). However, the game itself… we cannot really fault. It is simple, it works, and all the frilly bits are on the Warscrolls. There were no great rules debates during the game, other than those caused by our own ignorance (it was our first game) and those will disappear as we get to grips with the mechanics.

We were a bit surprised at the power of horses (two attacks each!), but they did get lucky rolls and probably reflect the use of cavalry quite well. We don’t see any issues developing there (other than me wanting to get Cold One Knights on the table!). The relative strengths of the other units seemed about right, from the Skeletons to the Treeman.

Undead armies could be quite potent due to their ability to summon, well, anything you have models for but, frankly, it does not seem to be as bad as it could be.

Overall, if you ignore the lack of points issue (and yes, I know that is a biggie), I would give this game a solid A grade.

https://ttgamingdiary.wordpress.com/2015/07/04/age-of-sigmar-battle-report-vampire-counts-vs-wood-elves/

**Polonius**

Manchu wrote:

Also, I completely understand why people whose preferred play style is no longer supported by THE COMPANY (GW, WotC, etc, etc) are upset. But ... it's not like some conspiracy against you and people like you. D&D provides another instructive example: when ruleplay became the dominant mode in the late 90s, roleplayers felt pushed out. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Thankfully, Pathfinder is available for people who don't like the older style of D&D that inspired 5E. For a good number of fantasy mass battles, KoW can play a similar role.

Of course. But initially you were arguing that it seemed wrong that one group of people got to define "serious" gaming, and I think while we agree that it's a very loaded term, there are differen play styles required and encouraged by different gaming systems. So a person that picked one system because of that style would feel less welcome in the new one.

the point is, AOS is more of a design revolution than it was an evolution from a prior system. While the game changed dramatically from 3rd edition through 8th, you still worked off the same basic principles: a common stat line, phase structure, etc. It also was, at its core, a game of manuever and list building. AOS is a very different beast, by all accounts.

Look at the change in 40K's fanbase in the three years since 6th edition dropped, and you could at least still use the same codices and rules throughout!

**BobtheInquisitor**

I'm just glad they're finally giving me in-game bonuses for doing the stuff I was going to do anyway.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to get back to my game.

Waaarrrgharbl waahrgarblewarghargh!

**Manchu**

Polonius wrote:
AOS is more of a design revolution than it was an evolution from a prior system

On that point, I entirely agree. To me, AoS is the "risky, all-out version" of what GW has been evolving toward in 40k.

BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I'm just glad they're finally giving me in-game bonuses for doing the stuff I was going to do anyway.

There is an honest point to be made here. Now, I'm not convinced it is a great design principle to encourage ... er, displays of enthusiasm with a mechanical bonus. But if I spend tons of time and money and effort building an army, you can bet I'm making "vwhooom!" noises when I use a spell.