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.

 Melissia wrote:

 pretre wrote:
No, it really doesn't.

Given two identical armies, my army is weaker because I don't grow a beard due to being female. This is, by definition, a disadvantage.

At first, I thought Polonius' use of 'harping' as a verb was unfair. I see what he's getting at though.

Sure, it's, by definition, a disadvantage if you take a Thane with Battle Standard. Luckily for you, 91% of the other Hero choices are available to you. The Thane isn't used in any of the formations and there's a whole huge list of units (28 or so) that don't require you to use him.

Great, you don't like that one rule. Don't use it.

 Polonius wrote:
But we're all glad that you're taking this so well. I know it's tough facing such overwhelming odds, but you've been a real trooper.

Trolling via strawman arguments and other such nonsense is beneath you, Polonius.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pretre wrote:
Great, you don't like that one rule. Don't use it.

I'm not using it-- after all, I'm putting off playing AoS at all until crap like this is gotten rid of.

 RiTides wrote:
they point out that they have to ignore the lack of points to give it that grade

Hold up, I posted that to counter the idea that the game is terrible even disregarding the lack of points-based list building.

 RiTides wrote:
I think if you ignored the under-or-over-costed points of almost any wargame, it could get a decent grade...

Seems fair to ignore a mechanic that does not exist in the game you are reviewing. This leads to the deeper issue of assuming GW's game is wrong/bad/broken/unfinished because it lacks something that, from a very deeply entrenched POV, is absolutely essential.

 RiTides wrote:
balance is a major part of wargaming and it is completely lacking from both this game and that review

No, it is a major part of some, mostly newer war games. I think a lot of posters are confusing the related concepts of balance and fairness.

 Melissia wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Great, you don't like that one rule. Don't use it.

I'm not using it-- after all, I'm putting off playing AoS at all until crap like this is gotten rid of.

Good, case closed then, right?

 Manchu wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Even my son knows that spaceships make different noises.

My wife claims boys are born equipped with laser and explosion noises. I reckon girls are, too, but are discouraged from doing so by bad parenting.

I know plenty of women who make pew pew noises. Unfortunately, my wife falls in with your later point in that she was discouraged from using her imagination and punished for playing pretend. As a consequence, she has trouble with the physicality and the psychology of playing. She's self conscious about making any sound that isn't widely accepted onomatopoeia. It doesn't seem to help no matter how many Police Academy movies we sit through.

 pretre wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Great, you don't like that one rule. Don't use it.

I'm not using it-- after all, I'm putting off playing AoS at all until crap like this is gotten rid of.

Good, case closed then, right?

I've mentioned this very sentiment numerous times, yet you're still here arguing against me-- so I guess it's not.

 Manchu wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
It's like I came out of the house one morning and Toyota had come and taken the engine out of my car.

One more time, what exactly did GW come steal from your house in order to make the metaphor comprehensible?

Initially nothing; ultimately, since AoS is it and nothing like 8th will exist any longer, they've removed my ability to take my GW WHFB armies into a game store and play a game that doesn't make me feel like a complete immature asshat. If I want to use Greasus, I have to strike a deal with my opponent? What opponent will accept anything if they know the result is a negative one for their units? So I have a $60 model that I've taken the time to put together and paint that is permanently hamstrung simply because some peon decided it'd be fun to turn a miniature game into a caricature of itself.

I'll get over it eventually, just like I'll apparently have to get over GW games, but that doesn't mean that I have to be grateful or immediately happy about it. This is me, saying my piece, along with other people that feel the same and some who don't.

 Melissia wrote:

 pretre wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 pretre wrote:
Great, you don't like that one rule. Don't use it.

I'm not using it-- after all, I'm putting off playing AoS at all until crap like this is gotten rid of.

Good, case closed then, right?

I've mentioned this very sentiment numerous times, yet you're still here arguing against me-- so I guess it's not.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. You keep mentioning it, so people keep responding.

 Melissia wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
while I see the broader point, I think harping on endlessly about one stupid rule isn't going to sway people.

I'n not "harping endlessly", I'm debating. The fact that I defend my points in a discussion on a forum should not offend you.

Your point is made to anybody with half a brain. it's an incredibly stupid rule, because it prevents women, men in the military, prepubecent boys, men that can't grow beards (like me), or people that don't care to look like lumberjacks. Given that women are, alas, a small portion of the warhammer playing audience, there probably more men affected by this rule than women.

But it's such a small issue, that while people might feel bad, they stop feeling bad because you're making a bigger deal of it than it merits. And that's fine, but if you're goal is any sort of persuasion, try to be persuasive.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It doesn't seem to help no matter how many Police Academy movies we sit through.

I wonder if Michael Winslow is available for counseling sessions? ... and now I wonder if he's available for wargaming voiceover work ...

At GW prices, you can't tell me there aren't players out there who could afford to hire him.

 Manchu wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
balance is a major part of wargaming and it is completely lacking from both this game and that review

No, it is a major part of some, mostly newer war games. I think a lot of posters are confusing the related concepts of balance and fairness.

I don't follow this. Are you comparing it to historicals where there is a scenario that is intentionally unfair to one side? (which is awesome)

Or Bloodbowl, that has intentionally underpowered / "fun" teams?

The problem here is there is no framework. In both of the examples I just listed, someone knows what they're getting into. With AoS, you have absolutely no idea until the other guy puts down 14 Bloodthirsters.

I'll totally give you that it's a new "non-entrenched" point of view for wargaming . I just wanted to point out what that review was ignoring, which is a pretty big deal for most wargamers (given the posts on Dakka when something that isn't balanced comes out for a small part of any wargame... and here, the whole game just eschews the idea entirely!). It is thinking outside the box, I'll give them that but I just don't see how it can work to the level they're expecting it to given the investment required.

 pretre wrote:
I think you're putting the cart before the horse. You keep mentioning it, so people keep responding.

If you think it's settled, why are you still here? I'm perfectly fine with defending my arguments-- in many ways, doing so is cathartic (though I do have to be particularly careful to make sure I follow Dakka's rules). That said, you're currently dragging the topic off topic by talking about me, and I'd rather not continue this line of conversation.

The sad thing is, I think this is GW's attempt at competing with skirmish games.
They heard the demands for a lower cost streamlined games and this is what they though we wanted?

Thankfully a new game store just opened near me, Malifaux ahoy!

 agnosto wrote:
they've removed my ability to take my GW WHFB armies into a game store and play a game that doesn't make me feel like a complete immature asshat

I guess the unspoken part is you only play at GW stores?

 agnosto wrote:
What opponent will accept anything if they know the result is a negative one for their units?

A good sport?

 Melissia wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
But we're all glad that you're taking this so well. I know it's tough facing such overwhelming odds, but you've been a real trooper.

Trolling via strawman arguments and other such nonsense is beneath you, Polonius.

It's really not. I've just learned over the years that the good stuff doesn't matter to you, so I play to the cheap seats.

But seriously, what do you want everybody to do? Agree that GW is horrible and sexist?

What point are you making that goes beyond the whole "these rules are stupid" that everybody is making?

 Polonius wrote:
But it's such a small issue, that while people might feel bad, they stop feeling bad because you're making a bigger deal of it than it merits.

This thread is about that particular topic. If just reading the discussion on the topic mentioned in this thread offends people so much that the logical portion of their brain shuts down, then, frankly, they're not worth persuading to begin with. And, just like I told pretre, now you're getting off topic by talking about me, instead of talking about the topic, and I'm not interested.

 Melissia wrote:

 pretre wrote:
No, it really doesn't.

Given two identical armies, my army is weaker because I don't grow a beard due to being female. This is, by definition, a disadvantage.

So play a gun line and bring a Glock. Advantage: yours.





Note to self: Homebrew AOS legacy house rules for Maelstrom's Edge Epirian Contractors, specifically in regards to costuming benefits.

 Melissia wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
But it's such a small issue, that while people might feel bad, they stop feeling bad because you're making a bigger deal of it than it merits.

This thread is about that particular topic. If just reading the discussion on the topic mentioned in this thread offends people so much that the logical portion of their brain shuts down, then, frankly, they're not worth persuading to begin with. And, just like I told pretre, now you're getting off topic by talking about me, instead of talking about the topic, and I'm not interested.

Wrong. I asked what point you were trying to make.

Care to share?

 RiTides wrote:
I don't follow this.

Do you mean, you don't get the difference between fairness and balance?

 RiTides wrote:
With AoS, you have absolutely no idea until the other guy puts down 14 Bloodthirsters.

As I mentioned earlier, it's not a problem that a given person might hypothetically be a douchebag. The problem is that someone actually is a douchebag. By all means, let the douchebags bring their 14 Bloothirster armies to the Tournament of Douches so they might finally know who is the true Douche Champion. I understand the problem here: with AoS, it can only ever be a Tournament of Douches because the rules do not sufficiently restrain and/or punish douchey behavior. What I don't understand is how this is at all material to reviewing AoS, considering AoS is not a tournament ruleset and it is made by a company that is unsurprisingly very much on record not giving a crap about tournaments. Does no one remember that GW made games that were only very, very roughly balanced long before anyone even dreamt up AoS?

 Manchu wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It doesn't seem to help no matter how many Police Academy movies we sit through.

I wonder if Michael Winslow is available for counseling sessions? ... and now I wonder if he's available for wargaming voiceover work ...

At GW prices, you can't tell me there aren't players out there who could afford to hire him.

That would be almost as awesome as my decades long dream of hiring Sam Neill to deliver a PowerPoint presentation. I wonder where Michael Winslow is now. I bet he would be invincible at AOS.

 Polonius wrote:
Wrong. I asked what point you were trying to make.

First you complained that I was making my point too often, now you're complaining that you don't know what it is?

These two things are inherently contradictory.

But if you really do need it repeated after complaining about me doing so... I think these "beard rules" are badly written. I find almost all of them immature and undesirable, and a couple of them to be even a bit misogynistic, and that this is enough reason for me to put off playing the game until better rules are released.

As is my wont, I have defended and elaborated upon this point in response to people responding to me, which thus explains my contribution to the eight pages this thread has garnered so far.

Honestly, outside of the fact that doing the same rote jokes over and over again will get old (and they will). The silly bits of AoS rub me the wrong way for one big reason. Every gaming group has their own set of inside jokes, weird mannerisms, and silly bits of humour. These were achieved by emergent interaction with game systems as well as the group's unique social dynamic. They are fun and funny for that group and no one had to write specific rules to force such social interactions because they happen organically as part of the experience of playing an inherently social game.

So the first thing that rubs me the wrong way is that all these enforced silly-time rules aren't actually funny because it is someone's own in jokes, and well, other people's in jokes aren't always particularly funny in another group. They lack that initial spark that made 'em stick with the group and means that they just don't get old quite as fast. But these proscribed rules WILL get old, and fast. It's as if they were afraid the game they delivered wouldn't provide the social canvas to get people laughing and having fun, so they made sure that they would force people instead. The day I need a game's rules to tell me to don an OUTRAGEOUS ACCENT is the day I die inside. I don't need a game designer self-inserting his oh-so-funny in jokes as literal game rules. That just makes it feel forced, like an old executive putting on a hat backwards and rapping so they can prove they're still hip.

Next, it is an obvious and unsubtle attempt to make Oldhammer stuff less appealing in play. They are already causing scale creep to help it along, but when you smatter the old units with forced in-jokes it gives this distinct impression of treating the original vets as second class citizens who GW couldn't even be bothered to give a proper release to. You get this distinct impression of them saying "Fine, play with your dumb old models, I hope you like bellowing like a loon and waving prop goblets around!" And again, this is the kind of stuff I expect from some groups, but forcing it drains all the fun and energy out of it and leaves the whole thing feeling hollow.

Third, it basically kills the game's viability for public clubs, LGS games, and tournaments. Now, I'm a gamer with space for a games room and I invite my group over to play in the privacy of my home, so we could play AoS straight without disruption (not that we would, because we don't need to parrot the designer's in-jokes, we have our own thanks). But in a public setting? Someone who lays down Wulfrik to sling epithets while someone's parent/SO/wife is browsing the store is a fast way to lose business. I can't see this stuff being easily do-able in this sort of environment, and sadly without public games AoS will lose a lot of its visibility compared to games that you can set up club or tourney games for without needing a list of house rules as to which special rules and characters are kosher in a given store.

With the game already lacking a "lingua franca" in terms of composition guidelines or a point system this means it feels like it is squarely aimed at insular groups that meet in private (i.e. the folks most likely to tell them to off while they just continue playing Oldhammer). Stores are put in to the hotseat in terms of providing not only a point system for the game (for public events at least) but they also need to set up a list of house rules to avoid overzealous folks playing by RAW from losing them customers due to proscribed, disruptive in-jokes being written in to the game itself.

I don't care for the whole mature/immature debate (I play with gorram toy soldiers for sake). But that doesn't mean I think these silly rules are a great step for the game and they are guaranteed to get old after the first couple of times. And after that you have a game where the sole balancing factor is "don't be a dick" that is expected to re-invigorate the WFB franchise despite being nearly entirely hostile to the concept of casual pick-up games. They made a beer and pretzels game that is probably the least appealing set of things to the casual gaming crowd and then to make it worse, they flipped off their "installed base" with asinine rules which means good luck getting grass roots support (which is basically all GW ever had to go on since they have no actual marketing department).

I can play a variety of other games that easily support casual play, and the choice of donning a silly accent or wearing a weird hat will remain mine. It is a pale attempt at aping the actual fun comedy elements of the Old World (which were always delightfully black as pitch) and it probably wont survive contact with the playerbase anyways after a few games. It is a big you to veteran players that sets them apart from current releases, and it is yet another thing that puts the onus of fixing the game on to a play group, tourney organizer, or store owner.

No thanks.

*imagines Manchu in full Mugatu mode*

 Manchu wrote:
Does no one remember that GW made games that were only very, very roughly balanced long before anyone even dreamt up AoS?

But seriously:

As I mentioned earlier, it's not a problem that a given person might hypothetically be a douchebag. The problem is that someone actually is a douchebag. By all means, let the douchebags bring their 14 Bloothirster armies to the Tournament of Douches so they might finally know who is the true Douche Champion. I understand the problem here: with AoS, it can only ever be a Tournament of Douches because the rules do not sufficiently restrain and/or punish douchey behavior. What I don't understand is how this is at all material to reviewing AoS, considering AoS is not a tournament ruleset and it is made by a company that is unsurprisingly very much on record not giving a crap about tournaments.

QFT. Exalt for 'Tournament of Douches'

- Salvage

Ronin_eX: since the silly end of the rule is nothing inherently to do with the associated mechanical bonus, there is literally no reason not to substitute it for your group's in-joke

This is just my opinion... but a new set of rules for a thirty-year-old game that shatters the fanbase THIS thoroughly simply CANNOT be considered a good one, simply from a business point of view.

When your customers are insulting each this virulently over whether the rules are any good are not, you've failed as a game company... or a Games Workshop, as the case may be.

I can see incidences of people having a laugh about someone's moustache and saying how he always rolls well with you know who etc.. But actually hardcopy applying rules that effect the game speaks of an insane lack of forethought or social awareness.

 Melissia wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Wrong. I asked what point you were trying to make.

First you complained that I was making my point too often, now you're complaining that you don't know what it is?

These two things are inherently contradictory.

But if you really do need it repeated after complaining about me doing so... I think these "beard rules" are badly written. I find almost all of them immature and undesirable, and a couple of them to be even a bit misogynistic, and that this is enough reason for me to put off playing the game until better rules are released.

As is my wont, I have defended and elaborated upon this point in response to people responding to me, which thus explains my contribution to the eight pages this thread has garnered so far.

You can make a point, clearly and repeatedly, without hyperbole or harshness.

What I'm saying is that I can make your point better than you can, and probably be more persuasive.

Your argument should be that the rule is silly, which it clearly is, and discriminates against all those that cannot grow beards, which by genetics and social convention precludes all women. Make the hat tip to the relatively minor nature of such a thing, but make the conclusion that its hard not to feel a bit excluded from really enjoying your army based on your sex. Rather than accuse them of being sexist (which the likely weren't), perhaps make the poignant point that GW didn't even consider the fact that women might want to play dwarves.

You could make your point in a more nuanced and effective manner by focusing less on the big stuff (sexist!) and more on the real stuff (that GW doesn't view women as even a potential audience).

 Polonius wrote:
You can make a point, clearly and repeatedly, without hyperbole or harshness.

If I wanted to respond to tone-policing I'd go read Reddit or Tumblr.

For the record, I don't visit either.

 Manchu wrote:
Does no one remember that GW made games that were only very, very roughly balanced long before anyone even dreamt up AoS?

Honestly? Probably not!

It's been 25 years since the salad days of Rogue Trader and 3rd edition. It's been 15 years since WFB 6th phased out the worst elements of herohammer.

That's a long time for people to be used to GW putting out a reasonably balanced product.

 Melissia wrote:
Ridiculous, pointless jackassery, with no redeeming features. They're rules crafted assuming that people who play WHFB are nothing more than immature neckbearded manchildren.

I agree with you, I'm not into being serious about playing warhammer, but really these silly rules are for kids. But what do I care I'm on my way to mantic