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.

Regarding brand, their brand is really "Warhammer". They could have made many new games under that banner, but decided to rename basically every race, destroy the old world, etc - so while not from scratch, they are building up from very little.

I don't say this to imply that had to continue supporting fantasy, just that with the effort they've gone to they could have launched a new line under the "Warhammer" name. They chose to try to turn Warhammer fantasy into that new line, hence this thread just noting that it's not because fantasy was the bad guy... it's because GW needed a new, smaller game, and took this route to make it.

Imo, new AoS and former fans of fantasy should be able to get along fine (and I think that was actually the jist of this thread - sort of a fond farewell, "Bang" as the Cowboy Bebop image implies)

 RiTides wrote:
They could have made many new games under that banner, but decided to rename basically every race, destroy the old world, etc - so while not from scratch, they are building up from very little.

Nah, not really. The renaming thing only strengthens the existing brand in legal terms and this will eventually also strengthen the brand in consumer terms, too. Terms like "Lizardmen" could reference D&D as easily as Warhammer, even considering the Warhammer concept is quite distinct. "Seraphon" seems awkward and clunky now (everything "fantasy" does at first) but we will get used to it quickly and it is definitely a better signifier just in terms of being a brand-specific term. Importantly, Seraphon remain Lizardmen -- they are not something new, really. The same thing really goes for the setting. Of course, we're losing the cool 17th-century Holy Roman Empire feel but the cosmology is quite familiar, being based on the existing principles (winds) of magic. And of course at its heart it remains a game and story that is really about Sigmar's forces versus the Ruinous Powers.

I'll agree to disagree on that, Manchu (about strengthening the brand). Like I said, happy to get along with you fans of the new world order fine even if I'm not (currently) on the boat!

 Vermis wrote:

Vetril wrote:
Some of the last games I played in 8th edition were with the Elves EoT list. Once I pretty much tabled a Khemri player - who also happens to be a friend of mine - on the first turn.
I felt awful about it, so I nerfed myself for the next game, which was against Bretonnia - so much in fact that I lost that one.
To some people this concept of playing against a person to have fun with that person is alien, I guess.

See now, to me this reads like you had a bad time because things weren't competitive. It bothered you that your friend's Khemri army was so uncompetitive against your elf build, and that your subsequent, self-limited (almost typed 'self-inflicted'...) build was so uncompetitive against Bretonnians. If you were only interested in narrative gaming or 'non-competitive fun', why would it bother you so much? Maybe the elves had a particular blessing from Asuryan on that day, or managed to take the tomb kings unawares somehow! Instead your fun was mitigated because things weren't properly pointed according to their abilities, therefore unbalanced, therefore poorly suited to competition.

You totally missed my point, so in a way you actually proved it by being one of those guys. ...Thanks, I guess?

I felt awful because he didn't have fun, not because the game wasn't competitive, balanced or fair. I've had lots of fun playing asymmetrical scenarios, even if I lost. But in this ccase the game lasted about 10 minutes. He drove a long distance, fielded an army and watched it crumble after 10 minutes.
I nerfed myself because I knew I could have played an army that wouldn't have let the bretonnian player charge even once. What was the point of playing such a game? If your interaction boils down to trying to catch up with units that are much more mobile than yours, how are you supposed to have fun?

Remember guys that a game is a social contract between two people. You play because you want to be entertained, but the same is true for the guy at the other side of the table. If you forget about this, you miss the point of the entire thing; so sometimes put yourself in the other guy's shoes before deciding you actually need to field Nagash in a friendly 1000 pts game.

PS don't pretend to know how I feel better than me to the point of telling me what I thought and how I felt. That's extremely arrogant.

 RiTides wrote:

Imo, new AoS and former fans of fantasy should be able to get along fine (and I think that was actually the jist of this thread - sort of a fond farewell, "Bang" as the Cowboy Bebop image implies)

Aye though the message got lost in er 'debate' that was my original intention to say "Its time to stop trashing the predecessor and instead remember the good times, lets not have a bad send off for fantasy. We owe it more than that." theres so many AoS threads and yet there wasn't one farewell fantasy threads.

Why say farewell at all? You can keep playing if that's what you prefer, and you have someone else that shares the interest.

 rybackstun wrote:

 tenebre wrote:

 rybackstun wrote:
I guarantee you, if WHFB didn't start calling AoS a kiddy game and calling the players that play it childish idiots who don't understand what a real game is, AoS players ,,,,

So really AoS "players" are WHFB haters or people who want to feel like they are part of the next "new" thing. You can not possibly have any attachment to the game yet.

This is the type of thing I was talking about earlier. Apparently, it is impossible for anyone to actually enjoy AoS. We're either WHFB haters or people who want to be part of the next big thing. In NO WAY shape or form can any AoS player be there to play the game because they enjoy it.

I'm sorry that you feel that people can't have fun with the new system, but those people do actually exist and in a much larger majority over "WHFB haters" and "Next big thingers"

Wow, way to misread and be the guy you're talking about.

He in no way said that you were a bad person for liking AoS or for disliking Fantasy, and then you start throwing this passive aggressive victimisation around. He didn't say you can't enjoy it. He said the Fantasy ruleset is better written, because it allows for more things. That doesn't mean it's more fun. It can be a horribly boring and even painful game to play and his point would still stand.

But you had to make out like he was attacking you, because you misunderstand and feel targeted by things that aren't targeting you.

Drop it. No one (or at least a very very small minority) is arguing the things you claim. In fact, you seem to be the only one harping on about it.

Vetril wrote:
Why say farewell at all? You can keep playing if that's what you prefer, and you have someone else that shares the interest.

Well, a game as complicated as fantasy that goes OOP will be hard for folks to keep up with. You can play a game with your mate who used to play, of course, but no new player will be able to buy all the army books required, and units will likely begin to be removed from sale that were a better fit for fantasy but not AoS. The writing was on the wall for some time, of course, but the reason there's so much interest in alternate rulesets like KoW is because games that still have the books being sold and supported are much more likely to bring in new players, and thus be a game you can continue playing with folks (other than your close friends).

I always build towards tournaments / events, so that's a really big draw for me and means I wouldn't build the chaos dwarf army that I have gathered for fantasy, but rather something like KoW that will hopefully allow me to use it further into the future and with more people (and at events).

Games workshop is pulling a fast one on you guys. this whole AoS thing is just one huge elaborate prank. jeez, ya'll are so gullible

 Purifier wrote:

 rybackstun wrote:

 tenebre wrote:

 rybackstun wrote:
I guarantee you, if WHFB didn't start calling AoS a kiddy game and calling the players that play it childish idiots who don't understand what a real game is, AoS players ,,,,

So really AoS "players" are WHFB haters or people who want to feel like they are part of the next "new" thing. You can not possibly have any attachment to the game yet.

This is the type of thing I was talking about earlier. Apparently, it is impossible for anyone to actually enjoy AoS. We're either WHFB haters or people who want to be part of the next big thing. In NO WAY shape or form can any AoS player be there to play the game because they enjoy it.

I'm sorry that you feel that people can't have fun with the new system, but those people do actually exist and in a much larger majority over "WHFB haters" and "Next big thingers"

Wow, way to misread and be the guy you're talking about.

He in no way said that you were a bad person for liking AoS or for disliking Fantasy, and then you start throwing this passive aggressive victimisation around. He didn't say you can't enjoy it. He said the Fantasy ruleset is better written, because it allows for more things. That doesn't mean it's more fun. It can be a horribly boring and even painful game to play and his point would still stand.

But you had to make out like he was attacking you, because you misunderstand and feel targeted by things that aren't targeting you.

Drop it. No one (or at least a very very small minority) is arguing the things you claim. In fact, you seem to be the only one harping on about it.

The terms he used designated that no player could actually be enjoying the system on it's own merits and that those players had to have alterior motives. If he didn't want that to be the message that came across then he needed to say so properly. But considering that the continued conversation with him showcased that it was indeed what he meant, your point is invalid.

I know that he wasn't attacking me and no where in my statements did I state he was attacking me. I was just helping him clarify the terms he was using improperly (later in the argument).

You use the phrase harping on about it, but I highly doubt that a few posts in one thread can be considered harping when others will post in every thread about the subject with the opposing view.

Note, I did actually drop it when I stopped posting in this thread yesterday.