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:

 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.

I'm not policing, I'm advising. It's what I do. it's because when you butcher making your point, it's actually counterproductive. And I agree with the main thrust of your point, and watching you mangle it is like nails on a chalkboard.

And the bigger point is, how little editing did these rules go through, that somebody thought rules that favor men over women would be okay? Or, how little does GW think of their female fanbase that they wouldn't change that rule to include some other method, such as hearing runic jewelry?

One way to read this is that it's cheeky and fun, and I've got no beef with that. But this is a publically traded multinational, doing very little review of a massive relaunch. That's the big deal.

 Polonius wrote:
And the bigger point is, how little editing did these rules go through, that somebody thought rules that favor men over women would be okay?

Very little thought or effort was put in to those rules.

If the rules stated "This model gets to reroll its to-hit dice, but must take the second roll if you choose to do so. We suggest that when you use this reroll, you talk about your (or your Thane's) magnificent beard, to give flavor to the action." it would have been no problem at all, and it'd have been flavorful and still amuse the people who like silliness in their games.

 Boss Salvage wrote:
*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

That was pretty good

I think this is the kind of thing it'd be easier to talk about over a pint with you, Manchu, so no worries (but I think you missed my point... it's not that I want to play against Mr. Douche, it's that I'd like to not have the other guy thing I'm a douche because I have no idea how to remotely balance my force against his without just winging it during deployment).

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

By all means, you are welcome to start a thread in 40k General Discussion to this effect. I hope you are not too disappointed with the scope and intensity of disagreement you will encounter.

The Internet before AoS: This game is so horribly balanced that there might as well be no points!

The Internet after AoS: This game is horribly balanced because there is no points system!

Polonium, isn't that the very definition of sexism? The rules are also Eurocentric and ableist in that they don't consider East Asians or anyone with a disability to be customers. I get the feeling it is more due to unconscious stereotyping rather than any deliberate attempt to exclude, but it is still there and still divides players into "our customers" and "not our customers" based on traits that said customers did not choose. On it's own, AOS would just be a trivially silly misstep, but that's not the case in today's gaming world.


Maybe if AOS gamer just played like they have a pair, it wouldn't be such an issue?

 RiTides wrote:
I'd like to not have the other guy thing I'm a douche because I have no idea how to remotely balance my force against his without just winging it during deployment

You know very well what will make someone think you are a douche, as you gave a perfect example of it: bringing a list of 14 Bloodthirsters.

Did you miss this part of my post btw:

 Manchu wrote:
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.

I mean, that was a bit hyperbolic. We could have an AoS tournament among good sports. Part of the entrenched POV I am talking about is designing games under the fundamental assumption that the only thing restraining players from being underhanded WAAC power gamers is the letter of the law.

 Polonius wrote:
rules that favor men over women

You really have to come to this game, which has been accused by its critics of being "for children" and "silly," with heavy legalistic assumptions to come to that conclusion.

 Manchu wrote:

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

By all means, you are welcome to start a thread in 40k General Discussion to this effect. I hope you are not too disappointed with the scope and intensity of disagreement you will encounter.

The Internet before AoS: This game is so horribly balanced that there might as well be no points!

The Internet after AoS: This game is horribly balanced because there is no points system!

Again, you seem to be arguing from this zen place of absolutes. Are you actually trying to defend the game, or are you just trying to play socratic method my arguments?

GW has put out rules that were reasonably balanced. Or, at least, that had thought and effort put into balancing them. FOCs, points values, restrictions, army books: these were all tools to make a game of 40k or WFB relatively even for both players. And lets not take the shrillest voices on the internet as a fair minded evaluation of a game's balance.

Manchu, if you have to replace bad rules with house rules or flat out ignore bad rules, that's evidence of flaws within the game's design. You can't really get around that fact.

Polonius wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 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.

I'm not policing, I'm advising. It's what I do. it's because when you butcher making your point, it's actually counterproductive. And I agree with the main thrust of your point, and watching you mangle it is like nails on a chalkboard.

And the bigger point is, how little editing did these rules go through, that somebody thought rules that favor men over women would be okay? Or, how little does GW think of their female fanbase that they wouldn't change that rule to include some other method, such as hearing runic jewelry?

One way to read this is that it's cheeky and fun, and I've got no beef with that. But this is a publically traded multinational, doing very little review of a massive relaunch. That's the big deal.

BobtheInquisitor wrote:Polonium, isn't that the very definition of sexism? The rules are also Eurocentric and ableist in that they don't consider East Asians or anyone with a disability to be customers. I get the feeling it is more due to unconscious stereotyping rather than any deliberate attempt to exclude, but it is still there and still divides players into "our customers" and "not our customers" based on traits that said customers did not choose. On it's own, AOS would just be a trivially silly misstep, but that's not the case in today's gaming world.


Maybe if AOS gamer just played like they have a pair, it wouldn't be such an issue?

I think Tumblr just leaked all over the last few comments... Unless I'm missing some hidden sarcasm, can we not have a race to the bottom of 'who can be offended the most'?

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
rules that favor men over women

You really have to come to this game, which has been accused by its critics of being "for children" and "silly," with heavy legalistic assumptions to come to that conclusion.

I don't think you do. I think you need to have a sense of reasonsing, and an understanding that for a lot of people, winning a game is important. For others, the appearance of fairness, that everybody has the same chance of winning, is important.

 Polonius wrote:
I don't think you do.

Sure you do and here's why:

 Melissia wrote:
Manchu, if you have to replace bad rules with house rules or flat out ignore bad rules, that's evidence of flaws within the game's design. You can't really get around that fact.

The rule in question is not even mechanical. It is not of itself even a matter of design. The only design principle is "hook mechanic X to some non-mechanic." Changing the non-mechanic does not affect the design in any way or form.

Everyone is free to do as they please. I like this rules, they add a personal touch to the game and the silliness that it can represent. But if you don't like the rules don't play with these rules, if you don't like Age of Sigmar play the 8th edition instead and if you hate or dislike GW and their decisions you have many alternatives to spend your money.

I doubt GW wrote a rule requiring a beard as a kind of deeply laid SIW plot. They just thought fliply and superficially, like a lot of their ideas, that it would be rather "fun". Probably not thinking that 12-year-old boys, a core market segment for GW, are also incapable of growing beards.

Hasn't this thread gone far enough? I think we can all agree the Beard Rules are pretty stupid. If they are fun to play, then play them. If not, then ignore them.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Polonium, isn't that the very definition of sexism? The rules are also Eurocentric and ableist in that they don't consider East Asians or anyone with a disability to be customers. I get the feeling it is more due to unconscious stereotyping rather than any deliberate attempt to exclude, but it is still there and still divides players into "our customers" and "not our customers" based on traits that said customers did not choose. On it's own, AOS would just be a trivially silly misstep, but that's not the case in today's gaming world.


Maybe if AOS gamer just played like they have a pair, it wouldn't be such an issue?

I don't think there's one definition of sexism, but at least we're talking about the issue here.

And that's my goal: instead of making the big, angry, loud point, which will inevitably lead to dug in positions and defensive arguing, we can instead have an actual discussion about how this is actually a little messed up, even if not overtly sexist.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I don't think you do.

Sure you do and here's why:

 Melissia wrote:
Manchu, if you have to replace bad rules with house rules or flat out ignore bad rules, that's evidence of flaws within the game's design. You can't really get around that fact.

The rule in question is not even mechanical. It is not of itself even a matter of design. The only design principle is "hook mechanic X to some non-mechanic." Changing the non-mechanic does not affect the design in any way or form.

I"m not sure what you're saying here. I don't think that GW is sexist, or that the rules is particularly sexist, but it's really stupid, and can appear sexist. And since, as you point out, it's a non-mechanical rule, why be so dumb about it?

It's about the appearance of impropriety.

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I don't think you do.

Sure you do and here's why:

 Melissia wrote:
Manchu, if you have to replace bad rules with house rules or flat out ignore bad rules, that's evidence of flaws within the game's design. You can't really get around that fact.

The rule in question is not even mechanical.

Gaining a bonus to in-game mechanics is "not mechanical"?

Your arguments are becoming nonsensical and contradictory, Manchu.

 Polonius wrote:
GW has put out rules that were reasonably balanced.

Some people think this is also true of AoS. I also know there are lot of folks who think this statement does not apply to anything GW has produced since Xth Edition [their favorite]. This isn't getting us anywhere.

 Polonius wrote:
Or, at least, that had thought and effort put into balancing them.

A loaded argument -- you're still assuming a certain kind of balance is a goal. (Judging AoS against WHFB 8th is admittedly fair, however, in some cases, for reasons you have already laid out.) But even so, I think you are really trying to imply that no thought or effort went into AoS's design, generally.

 Polonius wrote:
And lets not take the shrillest voices on the internet as a fair minded evaluation of a game's balance.

And now you are making my argument for me.

 Melissia wrote:

The rule in question is not even mechanical.

Gaining a bonus to in-game mechanics is "not mechanical"?

The balance of my post answers your question.

 Manchu wrote:
It is not of itself even a matter of design. The only design principle is "hook mechanic X to some non-mechanic." Changing the non-mechanic does not affect the design in any way or form.

It's not just about balance. GW has been making stuff that was unbalanced since before Rogue Trader but this is just... juvenile.
Do you know what was awesome? Mordheim. You remember Mordheim, don't you? Anyone with a Warhammer Fantasy army could pull some of their models to form a warband and go Wyrdstone hunting. But GW was like, "meh, who likes that crap, amiright?" So now we have a warband type game where you get special bonuses for making a constipated face while running a high elf dragon, shouting goofy phrases out loud like a goober from the "fear of girls" youtube videos, or growing out your facial hair and sparking an argument about sexism in gaming... WHY DO YOU DO IT, GW!? Hang on I... I just need a minute.

 Polonius wrote:
And since, as you point out, it's a non-mechanical rule, why be so dumb about it?

There's nothing dumb about it. What is dumb is trying to conceive of it as misogynistic, or anti-East Asian, or anti-active duty military, or anti-alopecia sufferer, etc, etc.

 fallinq wrote:
Hang on I... I just need a minute.

It's alright. Deep breaths now.

 Manchu wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

The rule in question is not even mechanical.

Gaining a bonus to in-game mechanics is "not mechanical"?

The balance of my post answers your question.

 Manchu wrote:
It is not of itself even a matter of design. The only design principle is "hook mechanic X to some non-mechanic." Changing the non-mechanic does not affect the design in any way or form.

A game mechanic, to borrow from the great sage WIkipedia, is a construct of rules or methods designed to allow the player to interact with the game state, thus providing gameplay.

By including these various actions (and beard-havenings) as a condition for activating an in-game bonus, the game literally turns these actions and beard-havenings (I will not stop saying that term now, it amuses me) into a game mechanic.

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
GW has put out rules that were reasonably balanced.

Some people think this is also true of AoS. I also know there are lot of folks who think this statement does not apply to anything GW has produced since Xth Edition [their favorite]. This isn't getting us anywhere.

 Polonius wrote:
Or, at least, that had thought and effort put into balancing them.

A loaded argument -- you're still assuming balance is a goal. But even so, I think you are really trying to imply that no thought or effort went into AoS's design, generally.

 Polonius wrote:
And lets not take the shrillest voices on the internet as a fair minded evaluation of a game's balance.

And now you are making my argument for me.

If you think I'm one of the shriller voices on the internet, than I'm a bit puzzled...

I would argue that there is a difference between poorly balanced, and completely unbalanced. Yes, in 5th edition 40k, 1850 points of Tau had virtually not chance against Grey Knights. That shows very poor balance. that's also one of the worst examples. I had plenty of games of 40k where i felt like I had a legit chance of winning, and I think most people feel the same.

Now, maybe the rules of AOS are written such that even if I bring 12 blood thirsters, and you bring 3 units of gobbos, you can still win. Would that win be like in the Battle report you shared, where a combat went nowhere for three turns than one side got lucky, wiped one key unit, and won?

I mean, flipping a coin and calling it is perfectly balanced, but that's not what many people people want.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
And since, as you point out, it's a non-mechanical rule, why be so dumb about it?

There's nothing dumb about it. What is dumb is trying to conceive of it as misogynistic, or anti-East Asian, or anti-active duty military, or anti-alopecia sufferer, etc, etc .

I dont' think the rule is any of those things. I think the rule shows zero though about people like that, which means the following are both likely:
1) GW designers don't picture their audience as any different from themselves
2) Nobody with an eye for context looked over this material

It's not sexist, but it does indicate that GW doesn't see women as a player. If GW does think women play the game, and still put the rule in, I think they give too much credit to the feminist wing of the internet to take a joke. Which, by the way, is all it is. It's a really lame, really inside joke.

 Melissia wrote:
By including these various actions (and beard-havenings) as a condition for activating an in-game bonus, the game literally turns these actions and beard-havenings (I will not stop saying that term now, it amuses me) into a game mechanic.

Getting a bonus is a mechanic. Getting a bonus for having a beard is a mechanic. But having a beard is still not a game mechanic. This is because nothing about having a beard is intrinsic to the mechanics of the game. Regardless of the terminological debate, "having a beard" can be replaced with any other non-mechanical thing and make no mechanical difference to the game. The difference would be purely thematic (which is the reason "having a beard" was chosen in the first place). But even the theme could be preserved by switching "having a beard" for say, entering the name of a misogynist into your Book of Grudges.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:
I mean, flipping a coin and calling it is perfectly balanced, but that's not what many people people want.

That's an example of fairness rather than balance.

 Polonius wrote:
It's not sexist, but it does indicate that GW doesn't see women as a player.

I don't think so. I think it indicates that the author did not figure people would insist on this categorically legalistic interpretation of the rules, which squares nicely with the fact that these rules generally do not give a feth about being strict, tight, balanced, choose your favorite competitive gamer adjective.

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
It's not sexist, but it does indicate that GW doesn't see women as a player.

I don't think so. I think it indicates that the author did not figure people would insist on this categorically legalistic interpretation of the rules, which squares nicely with the fact that these rules generally do not give a feth about being strict, tight, balanced, choose your favorite competitive gamer adjective.

I think we're both reading a lot into it, but even if your interpretation is true, there's got to be a better way to express that, no? I mean, I guess you can make the argument that all the silly non-mechanical requirements are going to be dropped by most players.

I still think there's a distinct lack of adult supervision over there. But I think we're probably over analyzing something that is explicitely not meant to be taken very seriously.

 Polonius wrote:
But I think we're probably over analyzing something that is explicitely not meant to be taken very seriously.

This is kind of my argument, though.

 Polonius wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
And since, as you point out, it's a non-mechanical rule, why be so dumb about it?

There's nothing dumb about it. What is dumb is trying to conceive of it as misogynistic, or anti-East Asian, or anti-active duty military, or anti-alopecia sufferer, etc, etc .

I dont' think the rule is any of those things. I think the rule shows zero though about people like that, which means the following are both likely:
1) GW designers don't picture their audience as any different from themselves
2) Nobody with an eye for context looked over this material

It's not sexist, but it does indicate that GW doesn't see women as a player. If GW does think women play the game, and still put the rule in, I think they give too much credit to the feminist wing of the internet to take a joke. Which, by the way, is all it is. It's a really lame, really inside joke.

Polonius, I think we are having a vocabulary issue. You actually say, "It's not sexist, but it does indicate that GW doesn't see women as a player." To me, that is the sexism. It is not necessarily malicious sexism, which is what I think you mean when you say it's not sexism, but considering women to be not a part of the community at all, either due to stereotyping, lack of imagination, whatever, still ends up demonstrating a different attitude towards them than towards "people just like me". Obviously, as we can see in this thread, GW's attitude has made a member of the excluded group feel excluded. That's why sexism, or whatever you want to call it when GW doesn't think of women as gamers, customers, people, whatever, is harmful for the product's reception by the community.

As for Manchu, you don't have to go full SJW to notice that some men feel unhappy with their inability to grow full, authoritative facial hair. The beard rules will just rub it in for them. There have also been numerous posters complaining that the Beard Rules are a problem for them because of their anxiety issues or other disabilities that didn't impact their WHFB games.

 Manchu wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
I'd like to not have the other guy thing I'm a douche because I have no idea how to remotely balance my force against his without just winging it during deployment

You know very well what will make someone think you are a douche, as you gave a perfect example of it: bringing a list of 14 Bloodthirsters.

Did you miss this part of my post btw:

 Manchu wrote:
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.

I mean, that was a bit hyperbolic. We could have an AoS tournament among good sports. Part of the entrenched POV I am talking about is designing games under the fundamental assumption that the only thing restraining players from being underhanded WAAC power gamers is the letter of the law.

To the first part, the problem is, in my experience where I've had the most "unfun" experiences playing GW games is where my opponent and I didn't have the same "douche line" as each other. Maybe mine is 3 bloodthirsters, but his is just taking any at all... and the gap can be much wider in this ruleset than in any they've made previously. So, it'd be hard for me to find games except with guys who had the same understanding of "douche line" as I do, to a greater degree than before.

I did miss that latter part, but I've got the same problem - a term like WAAC / power gamer / etc is applied differently by different folks, and I feel like it will be hard to avoid that label if you take a "good" combo in AoS... but defining "good" is very much open to interpretation (again, more than ever before).

I would like to watch you play a game though, and see how you handle it - sounds like it will totally work for your gaming group, which is great . I just think I would be too frustrated navigating that line in the various groups I game with, and so would rather just play something that is at least a little bit tighter on what is / isn't allowed or acceptable to game with.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
As for Manchu, you don't have to go full SJW to notice that some men feel unhappy with their inability to grow full, authoritative facial hair.

True, you only have to go full SJW to pretend it has anything to do with AoS. Now go play like you have a pair!

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
And since, as you point out, it's a non-mechanical rule, why be so dumb about it?

There's nothing dumb about it. What is dumb is trying to conceive of it as misogynistic, or anti-East Asian, or anti-active duty military, or anti-alopecia sufferer, etc, etc .

I dont' think the rule is any of those things. I think the rule shows zero though about people like that, which means the following are both likely:
1) GW designers don't picture their audience as any different from themselves
2) Nobody with an eye for context looked over this material

It's not sexist, but it does indicate that GW doesn't see women as a player. If GW does think women play the game, and still put the rule in, I think they give too much credit to the feminist wing of the internet to take a joke. Which, by the way, is all it is. It's a really lame, really inside joke.

Polonius, I think we are having a vocabulary issue. You actually say, "It's not sexist, but it does indicate that GW doesn't see women as a player." To me, that is the sexism. It is not necessarily malicious sexism, which is what I think you mean when you say it's not sexism, but considering women to be not a part of the community at all, either due to stereotyping, lack of imagination, whatever, still ends up demonstrating a different attitude towards them than towards "people just like me". Obviously, as we can see in this thread, GW's attitude has made a member of the excluded group feel excluded. That's why sexism, or whatever you want to call it when GW doesn't think of women as gamers, customers, people, whatever, is harmful for the product's reception by the community.

As for Manchu, you don't have to go full SJW to notice that some men feel unhappy with their inability to grow full, authoritative facial hair. The beard rules will just rub it in for them. There have also been numerous posters complaining that the Beard Rules are a problem for them because of their anxiety issues or other disabilities that didn't impact their WHFB games.

That's fair. I don't think it's conciously or maliciously sexist, but in general I just avoid the word sexist because it tends to bring the worst out of all people online.

 Manchu wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
As for Manchu, you don't have to go full SJW to notice that some men feel unhappy with their inability to grow full, authoritative facial hair.

True, you only have to go full SJW to pretend it has anything to do with AoS. Now go play like you have a pair!

I'm mostly commenting on the topic at hand. Someone is offended by the Beard Rules. I understand why. I write comments on it because I can sympathize.

Don't assume for a minute that AoS means anything at all to me.

Besides, using "SJW" as a way of dismissing someone's criticism is beneath you. Or at least I thought it was. Are you seriously saying you can't understand why someone who physically can't satisfy the criteria for the "fun" rules might not think they're "fun"?



And "Play like you have a pair" is just hilariously awful. More than even the Beard Rules, that infamous quote really brings to mind a stereotype of gamers as "neckbearded manchildren".

 RiTides wrote:
So, it'd be hard for me to find games except with guys who had the same understanding of "douche line" as I do, to a greater degree than before.

Previous iterations of WHFB did not address the douche line issue, either. This problem is not unique to AoS. What is unique to AoS is that it doesn't care about douche lines. Whoever wrote AoS realized that a douchebag remains a douchebag no matter what game s/he happens to be ruining for other people this month.

 RiTides wrote:
a term like WAAC / power gamer / etc is applied differently by different folks

I am using it purely in the abstract sense, however. What it means is literally, someone who will try to win the game at any cost including cheating. I'm not trying to find a line; I'm talking about the extreme end of the spectrum. According to a certain POV, miniatures games should be designed assuming they will be played by this hypothetical jerkwad.

 RiTides wrote:
sounds like it will totally work for your gaming group

We'll see. It has already been somewhat of an uphill battle. I describe this points-based mindset as "entrenched" for a reason.

 Polonius wrote:


That's fair. I don't think it's conciously or maliciously sexist, but in general I just avoid the word sexist because it tends to bring the worst out of all people online.

You may have a point there.

Unfortunately, I was simply trying to be accurate, not to use the term as a pejorative, and may have stumbled into an Online Context Problem.