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.

 Crimson Devil wrote:
I agree with Makumba, why would you pay GW prices for a joke?

to be fair, you dont' have to. The rules are free, and are only for legacy models, so you can use old WFB models in AOS.

it's not a question of paying money for the joke, but having the money you spent be turned into a joke...

 Crimson Devil wrote:
I agree with Makumba, why would you pay GW prices for a joke?

But MUST be a joke because you can download all the rules for FREE, GW does nothing for free unless it is a joke.
http://www.games-workshop.com/en-CA/Warhammer?N=102267+4294967072&Nu=product.repositoryId&qty=12&sorting=phl&view=table&categoryId=cat440002a-flat

Oh well, you can "forge the narrative" while partnering with your opponent more than ever before.

wow.. those are joke rules, and they will not be on any of the new warscrolls. JOKE RULES PEOPLE! Talk with your opponent and use them if you're in the mood, and don't use them if you're not.

Are you all playing unbound and everyone puts everything he wants on the table? Because that's in the 40k rulebook somewhere, and yet most people stick to detachments. Seriously, saying this is a bad game because it has optional joke rules is just silly.

I, for one, am appalled that GW would sully our games of make-believe with acting.

 master of ordinance wrote:

but the way these rules are done will bring even more ridicule down on the community. People shouting WAAAGH!, comparing beards, raising goblets of wine, yada yada.... Can you imagine what people walking past will think?

It might cause almost as much contempt as if these onlookers were to see or hear people act like someone pronoucing words like, say "boxes" or "space" slightly oddly was funny to perpetuate for years and years.

There is a difference between a football fan taking their shirt off to expose their beer belly and a football fan streaking across the pitch.

 DaKKaLAnce wrote:
Wait, are these rules actually reall or just rumors ?!

All real buddy.

Go here:

http://www.games-workshop.com/en-NZ/age-of-sigmar-compendiums

Poly Ranger wrote:
There is a difference between a football fan taking their shirt off to expose their beer belly and a football fan streaking across the pitch.

I believe the point of contention here is that the rules have been changed in such a manner that streaking across the field would contribute to your scoring a touchdown.

 DaKKaLAnce wrote:
Wait, are these rules actually reall or just rumors ?! this is kinda silly to make fantasy a kid game.... I mean this would be fun to do with my son,daughter, etc. maybe even being drunk with friends...But a serious pick up game? lol no

These are real rules for legacy fantasy armies in Age of Sigmar. Supposedly according to rumors the non-legacy armies, when they are released, will not have this garbage.

 Polonius wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
I agree with Makumba, why would you pay GW prices for a joke?

to be fair, you dont' have to. The rules are free, and are only for legacy models, so you can use old WFB models in AOS.

it's not a question of paying money for the joke, but having the money you spent be turned into a joke...

I know the rules are free, the miniatures sure were not. But I don't think the money is the target of these jokes.

 Melissia wrote:

 DaKKaLAnce wrote:
Wait, are these rules actually reall or just rumors ?! this is kinda silly to make fantasy a kid game.... I mean this would be fun to do with my son,daughter, etc. maybe even being drunk with friends...But a serious pick up game? lol no

These are real rules for legacy fantasy armies in Age of Sigmar. Supposedly according to rumors the non-legacy armies, when they are released, will not have this garbage.

Did you also get that mad when 7th edition allowed unbound armies? Did you stop playing the game because you were unable to ask your opponent: "let's not play unbound, ok?"

Seriously, if you don't like the silly rules, agree with your opponent to not use the silly rules. There, I fixed it for you. Do you really hate this game just because GW didn't write THE SILLY RULES ARE OPTIONAL in bold letters on every warscroll? Sheesh. It's fine if you don't like how the game plays, or that there are no army composition rules (yet), but complaining about the silly rules is just childish.

Ushtarador wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 DaKKaLAnce wrote:
Wait, are these rules actually reall or just rumors ?! this is kinda silly to make fantasy a kid game.... I mean this would be fun to do with my son,daughter, etc. maybe even being drunk with friends...But a serious pick up game? lol no

These are real rules for legacy fantasy armies in Age of Sigmar. Supposedly according to rumors the non-legacy armies, when they are released, will not have this garbage.

Did you also get that mad when 7th edition allowed unbound armies? Did you stop playing the game because you were unable to ask your opponent: "let's not play unbound, ok?"

Seriously, if you don't like the silly rules, agree with your opponent to not use the silly rules. There, I fixed it for you. Do you really hate this game just because GW didn't write THE SILLY RULES ARE OPTIONAL in bold letters on every warscroll? Sheesh. It's fine if you don't like how the game plays, or that there are no army composition rules (yet), but complaining about the silly rules is just childish.

The problem is not that we can't be bothered to play with different rules, its that this shows how GW thinks of its customer base.
It's quite insulting.

And GW will probably enforce the use of these rules in GW stores, which means that some players will never be able to get a game with the older rules, as GW is their only FLGS.

So the whole thing would not be a problem if GW wrote THOSE RULES ARE OPTIONAL? Or is it insulting that there is an option for silly games when people are in the mood?! I can only speak from personal experience, but we adjust some rules all the time, we create our own scenarios and we modify the army composition rules in the rulebook. All this without GW officially telling us that this is allowed. In fact, I would find it a lot more insulting if GW did not trust us enough to adjust those things for ourselves. And I find it sad that people are insulted by optional rules that are not targeted at them..

I have also never heard of a place enforcing rules like that. As long as you and your opponent agree, you can play whatever scenario and rules you want. If there actually is a store where the manager does not allow it, you shouldn't be frequenting it anyway.

Ushtarador wrote:
So the whole thing would not be a problem if GW wrote THOSE RULES ARE OPTIONAL to make it official.. ?

No. I don't like a game that wants me to act like a child.

No. I don't like a game that wants me to act like a child.

Then agree to not use the silly rules. I also fixed it for you, you're welcome.
If you can't do that, you should contemplate who's being childish here.

AoS = 8th Edition Warhammer 40K.

Too many similarities, too many coincidences, with stuff that GW has been doing over the last year or so.

Making "fun" rules for a player to act goofy to get rerolls or whatever is just... it's not what I want in a game. It's like GW doesn't even take it's players serious anymore. Who at GW really thought it was a good idea for a player with a bigger beard then his opponent get a bonus? What if his opponent is a woman? Or grumbling about how broken a model is and saying bad things about your opponent's army... the list goes on, and it strikes me as incredibly short sighted and lacking in good taste.

It's hard for me to respect GW as a company when they don't even respect me as a player/collector.

So what did they change? What do the players have to "act out"?

It's hard for me to respect GW as a company when they don't even respect me as a player/collector.

How is it disrespectful to include some optional gimmick rules for people who enjoy this kind of stuff. At least at my store there's plenty of people who really enjoy using them in their relaxed games. I'm sad that you feel slighted about something that does not actually impact you. You don't lose anything if you don't use the silly rules and decide to play a serious game after all.

 Melissia wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I dont' think the rule is sexist, but I also think it comes from a place where GW doesn't even think about women, which is somewhat worse.

Unconscious sexism is still sexism. In the "real world", unconscious bias is the most common type.

Only got to page 2 in this forum before responding buuuuut....

Earlier I posted that I will be writting letters to major stakeholders (private equity) in GW.

^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^

Gives me an idea. Using this specific rule, as yet another example of the complete ineptitude of management. To live in the 21st century and make basically gender specific rules is a humongous corporate faux pas. Now, I doubt, Melissa or others of our Sisters are profoundly offended more than an eye roll and a muttered "that figures..." However, this is yet another can of worms for the corporate managemrnt team. A letter writting campaign could potentially get some press on the sexism front. Not too diminish the very obvious and real seventy-two cents on the dollar gender inequality, but THIS could help us change MANAGEMENT of the company we love. Just an idea. No offence to others intended...

 asorel wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
There is a difference between a football fan taking their shirt off to expose their beer belly and a football fan streaking across the pitch.

I believe the point of contention here is that the rules have been changed in such a manner that streaking across the field would contribute to your scoring a touchdown.

Lol yeh I totally agree. I was responding to the people saying that people already look at players as 'odd'. Love the way you put that btw.

 doktor_g wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I dont' think the rule is sexist, but I also think it comes from a place where GW doesn't even think about women, which is somewhat worse.

Unconscious sexism is still sexism. In the "real world", unconscious bias is the most common type.

Only got to page 2 in this forum before responding buuuuut....

Earlier I posted that I will be writting letters to major stakeholders (private equity) in GW.

^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^

Gives me an idea. Using this specific rule, as yet another example of the complete ineptitude of management. To live in the 21st century and make basically gender specific rules is a humongous corporate faux pas. Now, I doubt, Melissa or others of our Sisters are profoundly offended more than an eye roll and a muttered "that figures..." However, this is yet another can of worms for the corporate managemrnt team. A letter writting campaign could potentially get some press on the sexism front. Not too diminish the very obvious and real seventy-two cents on the dollar gender inequality, but THIS could help us change MANAGEMENT of the company we love. Just an idea. No offence to others intended...

Seriously, this is where you would start when talking about sexism? What about almost every humanoid model being caucasian, or about the distinct lack of female miniatures (especially in 40k)? What about almost every distinctly female figure running around half-naked, and the female-only army not having its own codex since forever?
Accusing GW of sexism based on a joke rule that also puts men that are unable to grow a beard, or men that shaved this morning at a disadvantage does not increase your credibility. Especially if putting on a fake beard removes that disadvantage, and even more because it is a completely optional rule! There are many gender issues in many areas, but this really isn't one of them. If you are looking for gender issues in Warhammer, please focus on the real weak spots. Adding this example like that means you don't actually care about gender problems in Warhammer, you just use them to further another agenda. The fact that you apparently didn't think about this before reading Melissia's post does not help either.

Ushtarador wrote:

 doktor_g wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I dont' think the rule is sexist, but I also think it comes from a place where GW doesn't even think about women, which is somewhat worse.

Unconscious sexism is still sexism. In the "real world", unconscious bias is the most common type.

Only got to page 2 in this forum before responding buuuuut....

Earlier I posted that I will be writting letters to major stakeholders (private equity) in GW.

^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^

Gives me an idea. Using this specific rule, as yet another example of the complete ineptitude of management. To live in the 21st century and make basically gender specific rules is a humongous corporate faux pas. Now, I doubt, Melissa or others of our Sisters are profoundly offended more than an eye roll and a muttered "that figures..." However, this is yet another can of worms for the corporate managemrnt team. A letter writting campaign could potentially get some press on the sexism front. Not too diminish the very obvious and real seventy-two cents on the dollar gender inequality, but THIS could help us change MANAGEMENT of the company we love. Just an idea. No offence to others intended...

Seriously, this is where you would start when talking about sexism? What about almost every humanoid model being caucasian, or about the distinct lack of female miniatures (especially in 40k)? What about almost every distinctly female figure running around half-naked, and the female-only army not having its own codex since forever?
Accusing GW of sexism based on a joke rule that also puts men that are unable to grow a beard, or men that shaved this morning at a disadvantage does not increase your credibility. Especially if putting on a fake beard removes that disadvantage, and even more because it is a completely optional rule! There are many gender issues in many areas, but this really isn't one of them. If you are looking for gender issues in Warhammer, please focus on the real weak spots. Adding this example like that means you don't actually care about gender problems in Warhammer, you just use them to further another agenda. The fact that you apparently didn't think about this before reading Melissia's post does not help either.

Actually, if you read his post, he does have an agenda, which is to alert the Shareholders that GW's designers are out of touch. He's not accusing them of sexism, or at least not malicious sexism, so slow your roll a bit.

Again, I meant no offence to you, and yes it was meant to be used as a coercive propagandist cynical strategy to bring about change.

Ushtarador wrote:

No. I don't like a game that wants me to act like a child.

Then agree to not use the silly rules. I also fixed it for you, you're welcome.
If you can't do that, you should contemplate who's being childish here.

The bolded part makes your argument impotent. You need to understand people's opinions are not optional. They represent how people really feel. Yes, They can be changed but not by condescension or mockery. All your really doing in entrenching the opinion you want to change. Mostly out of spite.

Thank you polonius.
Please Ushta, that was your 14th post, please don't pick a fight. I see your deeper point.
Lets play nice?

 doktor_g wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I dont' think the rule is sexist, but I also think it comes from a place where GW doesn't even think about women, which is somewhat worse.

Unconscious sexism is still sexism. In the "real world", unconscious bias is the most common type.

Only got to page 2 in this forum before responding buuuuut....

Earlier I posted that I will be writting letters to major stakeholders (private equity) in GW.

^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^

Gives me an idea. Using this specific rule, as yet another example of the complete ineptitude of management. To live in the 21st century and make basically gender specific rules is a humongous corporate faux pas. Now, I doubt, Melissa or others of our Sisters are profoundly offended more than an eye roll and a muttered "that figures..." However, this is yet another can of worms for the corporate managemrnt team. A letter writting campaign could potentially get some press on the sexism front. Not too diminish the very obvious and real seventy-two cents on the dollar gender inequality, but THIS could help us change MANAGEMENT of the company we love. Just an idea. No offence to others intended...

Off topic, but stop perpetuating the unequal pay myth. Nobody worth their salt takes that idea seriously because it ignores the reason why there's a difference (because of conscious choices made by people to choose family over work).

lustigjh wrote:

 doktor_g wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I dont' think the rule is sexist, but I also think it comes from a place where GW doesn't even think about women, which is somewhat worse.

Unconscious sexism is still sexism. In the "real world", unconscious bias is the most common type.

Only got to page 2 in this forum before responding buuuuut....

Earlier I posted that I will be writting letters to major stakeholders (private equity) in GW.

^^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^^^

Gives me an idea. Using this specific rule, as yet another example of the complete ineptitude of management. To live in the 21st century and make basically gender specific rules is a humongous corporate faux pas. Now, I doubt, Melissa or others of our Sisters are profoundly offended more than an eye roll and a muttered "that figures..." However, this is yet another can of worms for the corporate managemrnt team. A letter writting campaign could potentially get some press on the sexism front. Not too diminish the very obvious and real seventy-two cents on the dollar gender inequality, but THIS could help us change MANAGEMENT of the company we love. Just an idea. No offence to others intended...

Off topic, but stop perpetuating the unequal pay myth. Nobody worth their salt takes that idea seriously because it ignores the reason why there's a difference (because of conscious choices made by people to choose family over work).

I agree, though it seems like this is beginning to veer away from the topic at hand. That being said, I don't think there is much to say regarding the original subject that had not already been explored.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Furthermore, granting people official in game benefits for having a longer beard or moustach is pure sexism

Not really. Sexism implies discrimination that specifically targets women. There are millions of men who either struggle to or outright can't grow beards due to genetics (myself included), so pro-mustache rules hardly targets women specifically.

The rule is stupid, but asserting that it's sexist is like claiming that amusement park rides requiring a height of X to ride them is sexist because women are generally shorter than men.

So, it turns out the game is actually great

 BlaxicanX wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
Furthermore, granting people official in game benefits for having a longer beard or moustach is pure sexism

Not really. Sexism implies discrimination that specifically targets women. There are millions of men who either struggle to or outright can't grow beards due to genetics (myself included), so pro-mustache rules hardly targets women specifically.

The rule is stupid, but asserting that it's sexist is like claiming that amusement park rides requiring a height of X to ride them is sexist because women are generally shorter than men.

So it's facio-mandibular folliclist?